[Moon] [Moon-Net] QRA64
Serge Szpilfogel
ve1kg at eastlink.ca
Thu Feb 14 13:54:12 CET 2019
Graham I agree re: the use of QRA64 on DX expeditions would not work very
well for the reasons you have given but most DX expeditions after 3 or 4
days being active starts endless CQ with often no response. So that could be
the time to use qra64 & work stations running 1 or 2 yagis with limited
power.
I am no expert on QRA64 & I only started using it recently but it allows me
to work stations that I normally do not see.
Changing mode is not a big deal. As Charlie & others said set your RX at
1000 & Toll at 500.
I am getting tired of working the same stations everyday & look for new ones
to work. They are many cases when small stations call me that I do not see
it would be nice to work them. Like the other day
Working F1TTN Laurent running 400 watts to 2X8 which I never saw on JT65B &
worked him on QRA64 on the first trial. That to me is a measure of success
Serge VE1KG
-----Original Message-----
From: Moon-net [mailto:moon-net-bounces at mailman.pe1itr.com] On Behalf Of
G4DML via Moon-net
Sent: February 14, 2019 08:48
To: moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com
Subject: Re: [Moon-Net] QRA64
Folks,
My 10 pence (or cents) worth, for what it's worth!
I tried some of the early QRA64 versions and in tests it did not seem as
reliable as JT9 (or perhaps 10). I'm sure those (admittedly, my perceived)
early teething problems are well sorted now though.
My 2 concerns regarding QRA64 (apart from the user interface) is the loss of
the 2 tone RO, RRR and 73. I tend to decode these by eye, especially the 73
in a pile up so I wonder how DXP's will manage this? Also, I'd be interested
in a comparison between the classic 2 tones and the QRA's Call1, Call2,
report type message, especially in a busy scenario.
Also also, when searching for a very weak station, or stations in a pile up,
in JT the sync tone always shows up first...I guess this won't happen in
QRA.
And btw, I've never really had a problem with Deep Search...in my CW sked
days I'm sure knowing the call of the other station made a few dB's
difference HI!!! Flak jacket now firmly on!!
Or it could just be that it's a new trick and I'm an old dog!!!!
73,
Graham
G4DML
-----Original Message-----
From: Moon-net <moon-net-bounces at mailman.pe1itr.com> On Behalf Of
moon-net-request at mailman.pe1itr.com
Sent: 14 February 2019 08:00
To: moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com
Subject: Moon-net Digest, Vol 404, Issue 9
Send Moon-net mailing list submissions to
moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.pe1itr.com/mailman/listinfo/moon-net
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
moon-net-request at mailman.pe1itr.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
moon-net-owner at mailman.pe1itr.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Moon-net digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: FW: QRA 64 (Bob Atkins)
2. Re: FW: QRA 64 (Stig Larsson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 06:56:19 +0000
From: Bob Atkins <ka1gt at hotmail.com>
To: "moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com" <moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com>,
"moonbounce reflector" <moon at moonbounce.info>, Serge Szpilfogel
<ve1kg at eastlink.ca>
Subject: Re: [Moon-Net] FW: QRA 64
Message-ID:
<BL0PR04MB4482469B6AE50E17B9F8FF8FE7670 at BL0PR04MB4482.namprd04.prod.outlook.
com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
My take on QRA64
In principle, QRA64 can probably be used on all bands to maximize
sensitivity. However on really weak signals it's probably more difficult to
use than JT65 because there is no pilot tone and it's not always possible to
visually identify the signal. In that case you have to send a constant tone
so the Dx station can identify your frequency and synchronize with it. If
both stations are GPS locked and know their frequency is accurate to a few
Hz, then you may be able to make a "blind" QSO without first synchronizing
frequencies, but that's usually not the case.
So while QRA64 is more sensitive, when you really need that sensitivity
(below around -23), it's hard to visually identify the QRA64 signal by eye.
That's probably why more people don't use it. When you can easily see the
signal, JT65 usually works just as well!
QRA64 also doesn't use Deep Search or need a table of possible callsigns .
Some people think Deep Search is "cheating"! I won't get into that argument.
QRA64 can/does use AP, but that only uses information actually obtained
during the QSO. It requires no prior knowledge of possible calls.
I don't know the current status of "AFC" (ability to follow a drifting
signal and or doppler shift) in QRA64 vs JT65. I'm pretty sure the ability
of QRA64 to deal with such signals is not better than JT65. It may not be as
good (it wasn't a while ago, but may have been improved). In the real world,
with doppler drift, signal instability and birdies affecting the signal, I
don't know if the theoretical advantage of QRA64 over JT65 is realized.
The submode that works best is the one the other station is using! That's
usually A on 144, B on 432 and C on 1296. A is more sensitive than B, which
is more sensitive than C. However C copes better with signal spreading
(libration) than B, which copes better than A. Under conditions of minimum
signal spreading on 1296 you could certainly use mode B, and possibly even
mode A and gain some sensitivity (as long as you have a stable signal).
However that required both stations to know in advance which submode is in
use.
QRA64 is the mode of choice on higher bands (like 10Ghz) because signal
spreading is too high for JT65C to be used and the only other choice is JT4.
QRA64 is significantly better than JT4.
I'm happy to run submode and QRA64 tests on 1296 with anyone interested in
doing so.
73
Bob, KA1GT
________________________________
From: Moon-net <moon-net-bounces at mailman.pe1itr.com> on behalf of Serge
Szpilfogel via Moon-net <moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 11:24 AM
To: moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com; moonbounce reflector
Subject: [Moon-Net] FW: QRA 64
Thank you to REX VK7MO & Stig SM4GGC for their detailed explanations on how
to use QRA64 & why it is more sensitive than JT65B & why for 144Mhz QRA64A
ought to be used.
Enjoy
Serge VE1KG
-----Original Message-----
From: Stig ?ke Larsson [mailto:stig.ake.larsson at gmail.com]
Sent: February 13, 2019 15:17
To: Serge Szpilfogel
Subject: Re: QRA 64
Serge It is all ok to put it on EME reflector. I have corrected some minor
spelling here.
Thanks for your appreciation of my video! This video is now 1 and 1/2 year
old made with WSJT 1.7. I believe there is some improvements and changes
made in in newer version 2.0.
I will try to comment on your questions.
1. The recommended sub mode by K1JT for 144MHz is A. The usage of sub modes
depends how much Doppler effect there is on the band you use for EME. As
max the Doppler only are a couple 100 Hz on 144 MHz is A best. For higher
bands 70, 23 and so on is B and C better.
2. In old WSJT 1.7 was audio level 30 good. In the new 2.0 have they change
how this audio level meter works so I belive 50-60 is Ok as long as it is
green. I have between 50 and 60 now days.
3. The sensitivity of QRA64 compared with JT65 depend how you use it look at
graph. For example JT65 with use of call in Call3 file is some dB better.
In answering a CQ call, but QRA64 has better sensitivity when you give
signal report. If you don't use Call3 file in
JT65 is QRA64 always better
image.png
My Wide graph in WSJT 2.0
image.png
Attached is the presentation from IV3NWV Nico in EME conference Venice about
his QRA64
Best 73 Stig, SM4GGC
http://www.sm4ggc.se/
Den ons 13 feb. 2019 kl 15:06 skrev Serge Szpilfogel <ve1kg at eastlink.ca>:
Stig thank you it is so helpful I wonder if I could ask you
permission to put it on our reflector??
It may help people to understand QRA64 A better. I wonder why people
do not use it more often??
Thank you again dear friend.
Serge VE1KG
-----Original Message-----
From: Stig ?ke Larsson [mailto:stig.ake.larsson at gmail.com]
Sent: February 13, 2019 08:35
To: Serge Szpilfogel
Subject: Re: QRA 64
Good morning Serge!
Thanks for your appreciation of my video! This video is now 1 and
1/2 year old with made with WSJT 1.7. I believe there is some improvements
and changes made in in newer version 2.0.
I will try to comment on your questions.
1. the recommended sub mode by K1JT for 144MHz is A. The usage of
sub modes depends how much Doppler effect there is on the band you use for
EME. As there is only some 100 Hz on 144 MHz is A best. For higher bands 70,
23 and so on is B and C better.
2. In old WSJT 1.7 was audio level 30 good. In the new 2.0 have they
change how this audio level meter works so I belive 50-60 is it ok as long
as it are green. I have between 50 and 60 now days.
3. The sensitivity of QRA64 compared with JT65 depend how you use it
look at graph. For example JT65 with use of call in Call3 file is some dB
better i answering a CQ call, but QRA64 has better sensitivity when you give
signal report. If you don't use Call3 file in
JT65 is QRA64 always better
image.png
My Wide graph in WSJT 2.0
image.png
Attached is the presentation from IV3NWV Nico in EME conference
Venice about his QRA64
Best 73 Stig, SM4GGC
Den tis 12 feb. 2019 kl 18:15 skrev Serge Szpilfogel
<ve1kg at eastlink.ca>:
Good evening Stig I was watching your video using QRA 64
VERY helpful to me.
I have a few questions
1) For 144MHZ which submode to use?? QRA/B or QRA/A ?? &
WHY??
2) I notice that your audio level are around 30 mine is
around 60 not sure what it should be????
3) I like the way you have the wide graph set up Which shows
where the station is
Can you send me a complete picture of your wide graph
please??
I thing Stig QRA64 decodes better than JT65B but I am not
yet convinced
Thank you Stig I will watch your video again hi!!!
Serge VE1KG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mailman.pe1itr.com/pipermail/moon-net/attachments/20190214/3bd73fc9/
attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 08:59:42 +0100
From: Stig Larsson <sm4ggc at gmail.com>
To: Bob Atkins <ka1gt at hotmail.com>
Cc: "moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com" <moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com>,
moonbounce reflector <moon at moonbounce.info>, Serge Szpilfogel
<ve1kg at eastlink.ca>
Subject: Re: [Moon-Net] FW: QRA 64
Message-ID:
<CAE6HF3z8tRiqH_FSnnVC-8fkgm7d_qwd1z1ukWC94=mRT36hNw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Great explanation Bob,
I just wonder how good is the red mark is on weak QRA64 signals.
The red marks that appearing on receiving signals are you there to help you
find the beginning of the QRA64 signal. Do they appear on signals below -23
dB? I haven't tested this.
Stig, SM4GGC
Den tors 14 feb. 2019 kl 08:02 skrev Bob Atkins via Moon-net <
moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com>:
> My take on QRA64
>
> In principle, QRA64 can probably be used on all bands to maximize
> sensitivity. However on really weak signals it's probably more
> difficult to use than JT65 because there is no pilot tone and it's not
> always possible to visually identify the signal. In that case you have
> to send a constant tone so the Dx station can identify your frequency
> and synchronize with it. If both stations are GPS locked and know
> their frequency is accurate to a few Hz, then you may be able to make
> a "blind" QSO without first synchronizing frequencies, but that's
> usually
not the case.
>
> So while QRA64 is more sensitive, when you really need that
> sensitivity (below around -23), it's hard to visually identify the
> QRA64
signal by eye.
> That's probably why more people don't use it. When you can easily see
> the signal, JT65 *usually* works just as well!
>
> QRA64 also doesn't use Deep Search or need a table of possible callsigns .
> Some people think Deep Search is "cheating"! I won't get into that
> argument. QRA64 can/does use AP, but that only uses information
> actually obtained during the QSO. It requires no prior knowledge of
possible calls.
>
> I don't know the current status of "AFC" (ability to follow a drifting
> signal and or doppler shift) in QRA64 vs JT65. I'm pretty sure the
> ability of QRA64 to deal with such signals is not better than JT65. It
> may not be as good (it wasn't a while ago, but may have been
> improved). In the real world, with doppler drift, signal instability
> and birdies affecting the signal, I don't know if the theoretical
> advantage of QRA64 over JT65 is realized.
>
> The submode that works best is the one the other station is using!
> That's usually A on 144, B on 432 and C on 1296. A is more sensitive
> than B, which is more sensitive than C. However C copes better with
> signal spreading (libration) than B, which copes better than A. Under
> conditions of minimum signal spreading on 1296 you could certainly use
> mode B, and possibly even mode A and gain some sensitivity (as long as
> you have a stable signal). However that required both stations to know
> in advance which submode is in use.
>
> QRA64 is the mode of choice on higher bands (like 10Ghz) because
> signal spreading is too high for JT65C to be used and the only other
> choice is JT4. QRA64 is significantly better than JT4.
>
> I'm happy to run submode and QRA64 tests on 1296 with anyone
> interested in doing so.
>
> 73
> Bob, KA1GT
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Moon-net <moon-net-bounces at mailman.pe1itr.com> on behalf of
> Serge Szpilfogel via Moon-net <moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 13, 2019 11:24 AM
> *To:* moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com; moonbounce reflector
> *Subject:* [Moon-Net] FW: QRA 64
>
> Thank you to REX VK7MO & Stig SM4GGC for their detailed explanations
> on how to use QRA64 & why it is more sensitive than JT65B & why for
> 144Mhz QRA64A ought to be used.
> Enjoy
> Serge VE1KG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stig ?ke Larsson [mailto:stig.ake.larsson at gmail.com
> <stig.ake.larsson at gmail.com>]
> Sent: February 13, 2019 15:17
> To: Serge Szpilfogel
> Subject: Re: QRA 64
>
> Serge It is all ok to put it on EME reflector. I have corrected some
> minor spelling here.
>
> Thanks for your appreciation of my video! This video is now 1 and 1/2
> year old made with WSJT 1.7. I believe there is some improvements and
> changes made in in newer version 2.0.
> I will try to comment on your questions.
>
> 1. The recommended sub mode by K1JT for 144MHz is A. The usage of sub
> modes depends how much Doppler effect there is on the band you use
> for EME. As max the Doppler only are a couple 100 Hz on 144 MHz is A
> best. For higher bands 70, 23 and so on is B and C better.
>
> 2. In old WSJT 1.7 was audio level 30 good. In the new 2.0 have they
> change how this audio level meter works so I belive 50-60 is Ok as
> long as it is green. I have between 50 and 60 now days.
>
> 3. The sensitivity of QRA64 compared with JT65 depend how you use it
> look at graph. For example JT65 with use of call in Call3 file is some
> dB better. In answering a CQ call, but QRA64 has better sensitivity
> when you give signal report. If you don't use Call3 file in
> JT65 is QRA64 always better
> image.png
>
>
>
> My Wide graph in WSJT 2.0
> image.png
>
>
> Attached is the presentation from IV3NWV Nico in EME conference Venice
> about his QRA64
>
>
> Best 73 Stig, SM4GGC
> http://www.sm4ggc.se/
>
>
> Den ons 13 feb. 2019 kl 15:06 skrev Serge Szpilfogel <ve1kg at eastlink.ca>:
>
>
> Stig thank you it is so helpful I wonder if I could ask you
> permission to put it on our reflector??
> It may help people to understand QRA64 A better. I wonder why
> people do not use it more often??
> Thank you again dear friend.
> Serge VE1KG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stig ?ke Larsson [mailto:stig.ake.larsson at gmail.com
> <stig.ake.larsson at gmail.com>]
> Sent: February 13, 2019 08:35
> To: Serge Szpilfogel
> Subject: Re: QRA 64
>
> Good morning Serge!
>
> Thanks for your appreciation of my video! This video is now 1
> and
> 1/2 year old with made with WSJT 1.7. I believe there is some
> improvements and changes made in in newer version 2.0.
> I will try to comment on your questions.
>
>
> 1. the recommended sub mode by K1JT for 144MHz is A. The usage
> of sub modes depends how much Doppler effect there is on the band you
> use for EME. As there is only some 100 Hz on 144 MHz is A best. For
> higher bands 70, 23 and so on is B and C better.
>
> 2. In old WSJT 1.7 was audio level 30 good. In the new 2.0
> have they change how this audio level meter works so I belive 50-60 is
> it ok as long as it are green. I have between 50 and 60 now days.
>
> 3. The sensitivity of QRA64 compared with JT65 depend how you
> use it look at graph. For example JT65 with use of call in Call3 file
> is some dB better i answering a CQ call, but QRA64 has better
> sensitivity when you give signal report. If you don't use Call3 file in
> JT65 is QRA64 always better
> image.png
>
>
>
> My Wide graph in WSJT 2.0
> image.png
>
>
> Attached is the presentation from IV3NWV Nico in EME
> conference Venice about his QRA64
>
>
> Best 73 Stig, SM4GGC
>
> Den tis 12 feb. 2019 kl 18:15 skrev Serge Szpilfogel <
> ve1kg at eastlink.ca>:
>
>
> Good evening Stig I was watching your video using QRA
> 64 VERY helpful to me.
>
> I have a few questions
>
> 1) For 144MHZ which submode to use?? QRA/B or QRA/A ??
> & WHY??
>
> 2) I notice that your audio level are around 30 mine
> is around 60 not sure what it should be????
>
> 3) I like the way you have the wide graph set up Which
> shows where the station is
>
> Can you send me a complete picture of your wide graph
> please??
>
> I thing Stig QRA64 decodes better than JT65B but I am
> not yet convinced
>
> Thank you Stig I will watch your video again hi!!!
>
> Serge VE1KG
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at
> http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mailman.pe1itr.com/pipermail/moon-net/attachments/20190214/1b5a5024/
attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at
http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
------------------------------
End of Moon-net Digest, Vol 404, Issue 9
****************************************
_______________________________________________
Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at
http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
More information about the Moon
mailing list