[NLRS] Beacon Question and a Modest Proposal

[Bill Ockert]

Hi Doug,

Thanks for the comments.  I had played around with propnet for
a while and that is a good sugestion.  I will take a look at their site
to seehow they deal with the automatic operation restriction.  Thanks for
that heads up.

As to CW, I agree.  That is why I am thinking of a beacon that would
run a few modes including CW in round robin.  That may be a requirement
anyway as some of the modes are experimental, I am not sure on the rules
on that now but at one point that type of system would have needed either a
voice or CW id.  It may have changed to a requirement that the protocol be
published.   Sort of irrelevant as if this flies I am planning CW as part of 
the mix.

73 de Bill ND0B




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Reed" <n0nas at amsat.org>
To: "NLRS List" <nlrs at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [NLRS] Beacon Question and a Modest Proposal


>
>
> Hi Bill.
>
> Interesting issue about the beacon frequency restriction.... Maybe that
> is only for CW beacons? I know that <http://propnet.org/> has been doing
> automated PSK31 propagation beacons on most bands. On 6M they are up at
> 50.291MHz. I had a PropNET 6M packet beacon station on the air before 
> that.
>
> As for the beacon mode, I'd say stay with CW if you want something that
> anyone sitting at the radio can tune in and use. But if you want
> something that will be an automated propagation beacon, then choose
> either WSPRnet or PropNET. Both systems are digital beacons that listen
> for other stations as well as transmit your beacon several times an
> hour. Both systems report back to a central Internet site saying what
> they heard and anyone can access the results on a real-time map from
> their web site. So far both systems are independent and don't share
> their info.
>
> Personally, I like the glitz and eye candy of the WSPRnet web page but I
> prefer the PSK31 mode used by PropNET. The main reason for my choice of
> PropNET over WSPRnet is that WPRSnet can decode signals about 24dB below
> the noise floor while PSK31 can dig down about 17dB below the noise.
> Since I want my propagation beacon to be useful to people running 50-100
> watts of SSB, I need to limit the beacon power according to those
> figures. That means my PSK31 beacon should be 1 watt or less, a WSPRnet
> beacon should be UNDER 100mw......
>
> In similar fashion, I'd suggest a 6M CW beacon should be under 25 watts.
> If it is heard reasonably well, that would indicate that a SSB QSO could
> probably be made with 25-50 watts or more.
>
> Back when I had the PropNET FM packet beacon station on the air, I think
> I was running 25 watts from the radio. My reasoning is that FM needs a
> fairly strong signal in the .5 to 1uv range to decode a packet message.
> So if my 25W packet beacon was received, I know that a SSB QSO should be
> possible with a similar power level. But PropNET doesn't use FM packet
> beacons any more....
>
> So if you want a beacon that anyone can tune around a radio and hear,
> stay with CW. But if you want a beacon that anyone can check on the
> Internet, choose PropNET or WSPRnet. So far there are not a lot of
> people using 6M with either system. Most PropNET and WSPRnet activity is
> on 10M or 30M. WSPRnet has a better international following,
> particularly on 30M. They may be about equal on 10M.
>
> Those are my opinions regarding beacons. Probably the biggest thing I
> have against either system is the need to dedicate a fairly fast
> computer and a decent sound card to either mode. And the need to use a
> SSB radio. A CW beacon transmitter can be a lot simpler and could be
> built from an old commercial FM radio if you wanted to.... Although
> you'd probably want use a crystal oven or replace the crystal with a
> more stable oscillator.
>
> Good luck with the project!
>
> 73, Doug Reed, N0NAS.
>
> Bill Ockert wrote:
>> I have been considering a 6m beacon for EN07 for some time but rather 
>> than
>> sticking with the
>> traditional CW beacon I was thinking of an updated one.  With the 
>> technology
>> that the WSJT
>> protocols made available and the  margin that those protocols provides 
>> there
>> are likely potential
>>   openings that are being missed.
> ______________________________________________________________
> NLRS mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nlrs
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:NLRS at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>