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

[Bill de Carle]

Actually, upon rethink, I believe WOLF BPSK 10 and BPSK MS100 were both 
the same speed (100 milliseconds per bit), so no advantage due to that.  
These days we have WSPR and Ebnaut, which should outperform anything we 
had back then.  Ebnaut is easy to transmit (BPSK) and a bit of a 
challenge to receive.  On the other hand, WSPR is a little more 
difficult to transmit (four closely-spaced frequencies), but very easy 
to receive.  I don't know if anyone is currently transmitting WSPR in 
the lowfer band but it sounds like a good idea.
Bill, VE2IQ

On 2023-12-23 6:33 p.m., John Andrews wrote:
> 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
> ______________________________________________________________
> Lowfer mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Lowfer at mailman.qth.net
> Post must be less than 50KB total for message plus attachment!
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html