[NLRS] Beacon Question and a Modest Proposal

Fri Sep 23 17:59:00 EDT 2011

Dual ID for data modes went away several decades ago. Some time after 
RTTY shift was allowed less than 900 Hz shift instead of being required 
to be 850 Hz shift (with apparently zero tolerance for error! At least 
the rules didn't specify a tolerance for an error in the shift.) However 
the CW mode is very useful for us that don't like running a computer in 
the hamshack (RF noise and all that) so we can ID the beacon.

Likely the Propnet and other complex mode beacons are slipping under the 
ruler for unattended data link stations. They do pass message data like 
an automated packet or HAL station, but sometimes they are only trying 
for connections (and that's the data tried but failed to make a 
connection, but still serves as a beacon).

 From the FCC rules, 6m CW and probably 2m CW subbands are the only 
place you can't run DATA and CW in the same subband. Neither has 
accomplished the supposed benefits of the sponsors, better DX on CW.

A problem with a 6m beacon higher in the band that has come to bite SSB 
DXing is that F2 is very frequency sensitive and historically the MUF 
might reach 49.98 and never get past 50.01, much less 50.100 or up to 50.39.

There is still a group wasting electric power trying to run AM on 50.4 
so they'd not appreciate a beacon too close to there. Though my 
experiences have been that I've made dozens or more CW and SSB sporadic 
E contacts while still only detecting AM carriers, not copying any 
modulation on 50.400.

Today frequencies very close to 50.000 and 144.000 tend to be useless 
because of computer clocks on some even MHz subharmonic, as likely in a 
cookstove, clock radio, or DVD player as the internet computer.

WSPR gets a lot of its performance from a very slooooow data rate. Like 
2 minutes per transmission.

73, Jerry, K0CQ

On 9/23/2011 2:15 PM, Bill Ockert wrote:
>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>