Re: QCX Rev 4 Build

#33683

Getting those plastic threads to mesh can be very frustrating and take a whole lot of fiddling. Some times when you are ready to give up it will suddenly for no good reason work.

Re: FT8 for U3?

#33682

Hi Hans,
I think your last two reasons make most sense;

3) how many stations are active in each mode?

?

4) propagation conditions may favour shorter transmission bursts rather than a minute transmission?

Beaconing is fine but QSOs are what make life more interesting. WSPR15 is supposed to even better on SNR but I really hear anyone using it. I also found where WSPR on 2m yields nothing here, the band is alive with FT8 dx, of which some could be short term aircraft scatter.

73 ?Ken g4apb?

Re: a new QCX 20 begins

#33681

Yep, page 54 “The four windings on T1 must all be in the same “sense”. There are two ways to wind toroids. You might call them left-handed and right-handed; clockwise and counter-clockwise; whether the wire goes through the toroid from top to bottom, or from bottom to top. Whatever you call it, all the four windings have to be the same, to be sure to get the phasing to the quadrature sampling detector correct.” In my photo I had very carefully installed the windings with the three small ones one way but incorrectly with the large one the opposite and had to redo it .

Re: a new QCX 20 begins

#33680

Make sure the phasing is right on each and all of those coils
Not 100% sure it matters but I redid mine...

Re: FT8 for U3?

#33679

On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 11:46 AM, Alan G4ZFQ wrote:

Yes the latest WSPR Deep decoder is prone to impossible decodes.
I find it better when I set Decode to normal.

Hi Alan,

I wonder what the default setting is, on or off ?

I just tried to install the latest WSJTX on Linux to find out, but the dev team insist on using
a new C library, and expect everyone to do a new OS upgrade just to run it.

That's pretty much p'd off 90% of Linux users who want to stick to a stable OS code base ;-)

- Andy -

Re: Will the VFO/Signal Generator + 12M LPF be suitable as LO for QO-100 LNB use?

#33678

I 'am very interested to use the QRP-Labs VFO/Signal Generator + the QLG1 as a affordable GPSDO for my ES'Hail 2 / QO-100 (Qatar Oscar 100) satellite LNB (LO 25 ~ 25.8 MHz.), Frank,

I left my reply waiting for someone who used Es'hail like that. My PLL is just about stable enough with sun screening but I'd think the QRP Labs VFO would do a good job.
 I expect you know some LNBs are reported not to work if the LO is set too far from standard.

73 Alan G4ZFQ

Re: FT8 for U3?

#33677

I may be talking cobblers here, but I *thought* the WSJT-X decoder allowed? AP (a priori) / deep decode.
Andy,

Yes the latest WSPR Deep decoder is prone to impossible decodes.
I find it better when I set Decode to normal.

Could explain why FT8 seems to keep breaking the laws of propagation physics.It depends who sets the laws:-)

73 Alan G4ZFQ

Re: FT8 for U3?

#33676

I may be talking cobblers here, but I *thought* the WSJT-X decoder allowed? AP (a priori) / deep decode.

As witnessed elsewhere on another mode, deep decode allowed the propagation mysterons to magically create
contacts that were previously deemed totally impossible, except when playing a game of Chinese Whispers
by through the internet ;-)

Could explain why FT8 seems to keep breaking the laws of propagation physics.

- Andy -

Re: QCX Rev 4 Build

#33675

Hi Al

The colour codes are 5-band. Did you measure 38 ohms? That is the while 5-band code?

73 Hans G0UPL?

Show quoted text

On Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 03:59 Al Lipinski <lipinski.al@...> wrote:

Is there a reason I am left with one resistor that measures 38 ohms (Orange/White/Black)???

All the white spacers in the kit will accept the screw in one end.? The screw wont fit in the other end of the spacer.?

Al Lipinski?

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 8:50 PM Hans Summers <hans.summers@...> wrote:
Hi Al

Yes. Non-critical. The most non-critical place for the low one would be C21 or C22.

73 Hans G0UPL?
?

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019, 05:48 Al Lipinski <lipinski.al@...> wrote:
Section 3.16 of manual?

Install 1uF capacitors (3).??

I measured two caps at 0.978 uF
I measured one cap at 0.775uF? ?.? About - 22% tolerance
Should I install the low cap?????

Thanks,?

--
Al Lipinski

--
Al Lipinski

Re: FT8 for U3?

#33674

All

WSPR *should* have much higher SNR than FT8.?

WSPR: 50 bit payload, sent in 2 minutes, 6Hz bandwidth.?

FT8: 75 bit payload, sent in 15 seconds, 50Hz bandwidth?

FT8 sends more info, and 8x faster, and 8x more bandwidth. These aren't the only factors. But if all else was equal, by quite a wide margin, WSPR ought to provide more copy (or at lower power) than FT8.

I think that other factors might influence spot rate; for example

1) how good are WSPR station's receiving capabilities and antennas? It is my impression that a lot of WSPR receiving stations are using wideband SDR dongles and such solutions - which typically don't give high performance.

2) congestion: if more WSPR signals are on top of each other, that could mean the weaker ones aren't getting copied. Same applies to FT8

3) how many stations are active in each mode?

4) propagation conditions may favour shorter transmission bursts rather than a minute transmission?

Just ideas.?

73 Hans G0UPL?

?

Show quoted text

On Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 10:24 Alan G4ZFQ <alan4alan@...> wrote:

, BUT, if I run a couple of CQs on FT8, I
> get reports at MUCH greater range and spots stations in The USA, deep
> into Russia and even South Arfrica. Clearly conditions are much better
> than WSPR predicts?

Ken,

OK, I cannot answer that, you tell me.
There are several questions.
Are the same antennas used each end? Many WSPR setups seem to use
compromise multiband antennas.
The same power as WSPR?
Is there similar levels of activity?

I have seen claims that the effectiveness of FT8 is because of greater
power, some that say WSPR gets through with less power. Have there been
definitive tests?

FT8 uses 15 seconds of 50Hz bandwidth, WSPR nearly 2 minutes of 6Hz
bandwidth with error correction. About the same time/bandwidth product
(if there is such a thing:-) but I'd think WSPR would be better, less
information.

73 Alan G4ZFQ

Re: FT8 for U3?

#33673

开云体育

Hi Alan,

I have used WSPR many times and have had reports from most continents ( not Antarctica ) using a few watts. The Racal ex-military rig I use for digital modes is currently undergoing a faulting issue.? As you rightly say it is only a one way mode so not used for communication. I was surprised to see you refer to it in your previous mail as a communication mode.

HAGWE

Geoff

On 20/04/2019 03:46, Alan de G1FXB via Groups.Io wrote:

Show quoted text

Hi Geoff,

(From the WSJT / WSPR modes home page.

Description
WSPR implements a protocol designed for probing potential propagation paths with low-power transmissions.? Normal transmissions carry a station's callsign, Maidenhead grid locator, and transmitter power in dBm.? The program can decode signals with S/N as low as -28 dB in a 2500 Hz bandwidth.? Stations with internet access can automatically upload their reception reports to a central database called WSPRnet, which includes a mapping facility.? To see a live version of the map pictured at top right, click here.)

My take is....
WSPR is useful as an own use propagation tool, I have used it since approx 20I0 having seen the work of W3PM / GM4YRE (?)
In all that time I have never used the WSPR mode intentionally for the purposes of communication for which it is not suited.
WSPR was conceived / is used as a one way RF based uplink mode having reserved allocations on specified Amateur Bands, with confirmation back from a remote RX station to the TX station provided via IP / internet?
As a by-product of acepting these terms of use, a database entry is available for free use to anyone having an interest, not necessarily restricted to licenced Radio Amateurs.
Alan

On 19/04/2019 23:46, geoff M0ORE via Groups.Io wrote:

Alan, is WSPR a communication mode?

Re: Will the VFO/Signal Generator + 12M LPF be suitable as LO for QO-100 LNB use?

#33672

Hi Frank

I don't know enough details about your application. What frequency stability is required at the operating frequency? Is the VFO output to be mixed with something to a higher frequency? Or multiplied to something? Or a reference? More details needed....?

73 Hans G0UPL?

?

Show quoted text

On Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 11:30 Frank de Wilde <ph2m@...> wrote:

Until now I received no more replies on my question, I 'am very interested to use the QRP-Labs VFO/Signal Generator + the QLG1 as a affordable GPSDO for my ES'Hail 2 / QO-100 (Qatar Oscar 100) satellite LNB (LO 25 ~ 25.8 MHz.), so please could someone including Hans (Summers) give me an advice if this will work?

73 de Frank PH2M

Re: U3S transmitting through the case

#33671

Here we go, the culprit: An unsoldered joint on the 20m LPF module.
FYI: This has?intermittent?continuity.?

--
Best regards,
Chris
M0XFL

Re: Will the VFO/Signal Generator + 12M LPF be suitable as LO for QO-100 LNB use?

#33670

Until now I received no more replies on my question, I 'am very interested to use the QRP-Labs VFO/Signal Generator + the QLG1 as a affordable GPSDO for my ES'Hail 2 / QO-100 (Qatar Oscar 100) satellite LNB (LO 25 ~ 25.8 MHz.), so please could someone including Hans (Summers) give me an advice if this will work?

73 de Frank PH2M

Re: Multi band QCX plus Party time...

#33669

Hello Alan :-)?

Appreciate the detailed feedback and agree that until tried I won't know the answer ;-). Then again, I have a couple of options for other bands including a uBitx who's enclosure is nearing completion so 'easiest' route for the QCX is to keep as single band and enjoy sooner rather than later!

With regards to 'party time', clarification from others more knowledgeable would be welcome as after checking details of the event, scoring is applied and results submitted to 3830scores.com, so will be interesting how to debate that the qso party is not a contest... A QCX 'watering hole' would be quite busy I'm sure, especially for 30m users <smile>!

Ahhhhhh, teabags, yes, an ESSENTIAL part of life! Marmite also enjoyable but not as important as a good strong mug of tea :-)

Until the next time remember to KEEPSMILING!

73

Nigel

ZS6RN ex G8DEV ?

Re: FT8 for U3?

#33668

, BUT, if I run a couple of CQs on FT8, I
get reports at MUCH greater range and spots stations in The USA, deep into Russia and even South Arfrica. Clearly conditions are much better than WSPR predicts?Ken,

OK, I cannot answer that, you tell me.
There are several questions.
Are the same antennas used each end? Many WSPR setups seem to use compromise multiband antennas.
The same power as WSPR?
Is there similar levels of activity?

I have seen claims that the effectiveness of FT8 is because of greater power, some that say WSPR gets through with less power. Have there been definitive tests?

FT8 uses 15 seconds of 50Hz bandwidth, WSPR nearly 2 minutes of 6Hz bandwidth with error correction. About the same time/bandwidth product (if there is such a thing:-) but I'd think WSPR would be better, less information.

73 Alan G4ZFQ

Re: FT8 for U3?

#33667

Power used?

Roger

Show quoted text

On 20 April 2019 07:58:40 BST, "KEN G4APB via Groups.Io" <lfoofui.nbz42@...> wrote:

Hi Alan,
why is it that when I look at WSPRnet on say 160m I only see local Europe stations and like?
wise my own transmissions are hardly spotted, so information is conditions are not that good, BUT, if I run a couple of CQs on FT8, I get reports at MUCH greater range and spots stations in The USA, deep into Russia and even South Arfrica. Clearly conditions are much better than WSPR predicts?

73 Ken G4apb?

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Yet Another 20m QCX

#33666

Very nice, very green.??
73
Peter, GM0EUL

Re: FT8 for U3?

#33665

Hi Alan,
why is it that when I look at WSPRnet on say 160m I only see local Europe stations and like?
wise my own transmissions are hardly spotted, so information is conditions are not that good, BUT, if I run a couple of CQs on FT8, I get reports at MUCH greater range and spots stations in The USA, deep into Russia and even South Arfrica. Clearly conditions are much better than WSPR predicts?

73 Ken G4apb?

Re: FT8 for U3?

#33664

is WSPR a communication mode?
Geoff,

Back in 2010 there was a WSPR QSO mode which a few tried but it did not catch on.

My opinion about FT8 is that it is not suited for constant beacon use on HF because there are other modes, more effective and lower bandwidth.

73 Alan G4ZFQ