[pskmail] Re: Newbie needs help
- From: John Douyere <vk2eta@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: pskmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:14:46 +1100
Hi Bruce,
Regarding the mode to use, the system automatically adjusts the mode
depending on the conditions. So the only concern for the operator is
the selection of the initial mode to make the connection.
After connection, the software will try to use the mode which is as
fast as possible while not creating too many repeats.
So to be on the safe side you can use modes like MFSK32 or THOR22 or
even MFSK16 is conditions are marginal (these are part of the list of
modes that are available from Pskmail).
Regarding the radio requirements, it depends on what area you want to cover.
Here is an example that I can give you as a starting point: within a
radius of around 250 miles I have used successfully a 5 watts
transceiver (FT-817) with a low lying full size dipole, a G5RV and in
some cases a full size loop (all between 6 and 9 feet above ground)
using the 80M and 40M bands depending on the time of the day.
If the noise on the receiving side is low this can be fairly reliable
(my *guess* more than 75% of the time).
Otherwise using 100 watts produces better results especially if the
antennas are more on the compromise side or the noise level is more
typical of the cities.
As an example of compromise situation I reliably (more than 95% of the
time, again my guess) connect to my Pskmail server from my car
(stationary) using a mobile antenna and 100 watts. The server is also
running 100 watts and a G5RV at 20 feet above the ground. Within 500
miles I use mainly 40M during the middle of the day and 80M the rest
of the time. But again that is at a latitude between 25 and 40 degree
approximately.
Your MUF pattern will most likely be different as your latitude is higher.
Searching on Google about NVIS transmission may give you some good
starting points regarding the radio side.
Hope this helps,
Regards,
John (VK2ETA)
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Bruce Beach <language@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks again, Per
>
> and any thoughts on the necessity
>
> or feasibility of our using ‘63’ – ‘250’ or ‘500’?
>
>
>
> Peace and love,
>
> Bruce
>
Other related posts:
