[Lowfer] Wonderful Night - SJ, TAG, & WM

[John Andrews]

Bill,

Yes, with WOLF being sent at BPSK 10, it was a lot more frequency 
tolerant than the BPSK 100 rates we tried before that. Assuming a stable 
path and good frequency control though, the slower rates were very 
effective. Nobody was concerned with the linearity of the transmitter PA 
at 1 watt, and the bandwidth consumed by those phase transitions were 
only a very local problem.

Later on, I remember running WOLF in the 137 kHz band with a good 500 
watts from the transmitter. Even with the linear PA, and some envelope 
shaping that got built into the DL4YHF version, I could hear the vacuum 
variable in the loop tuning network going "bing...bing...bing" on the 
phase flips from across the back yard.

Back to Bill Cantrell and TX - He had a nice transmit antenna setup, as 
shown on his QSL card. Big level field, with no trees or shrubbery, and 
a tower fed as a vertical. I assume there was a decent ground wire 
system, too. I think he was one of the guys who used to roll out chicken 
wire on top of the grass over the winter.

And for receiving, let us not forget that despite our whining at the 
time, the LF spectrum was quieter 20+ years ago.

John, W1TAG

On 12/23/2023 4:30 PM, Bill de Carle wrote:
> I copied Bill Cantrell's signal at my Quebec QTH on New Year's Day 2000 
> on 189.700 kHz, using BPSK MS100.  Bill had a rubidium standard and I 
> used an OCXO.  WOLF was more tolerant of frequency errors.  I calculate 
> the distance as 1514 miles, so you beat me by 18 miles!
> Bill VE2IQ