This is what happens when...

...I let a half decent long wire play with my 756proIII for the day on 30m.

Unfortunately, again, all of the tasty dx hears me but I can't hear them. I think the best reciprocal contact (i.e. close to proper QSO) here is Israel.

This is 30m, 5 watts, long wire. More than I normally use with the 817. But there isn't THAT much difference with the an 817 on 2.5W with no preamp, is there? That's 817,2.5W, poor LW, this one is a considerably more expensive Icom 756ProIII, sloghtly better LW and 5W

And a Happy Christmas to All

160m Opera

Just when I thought I wouldn't accomplish anything interesting this week because of work commitments an interesting bit of DX popped out of the bag.

Opera, which looks like a slightly clunkier version of WSPR, sits on my desktop. If tempted to turn it on I seem to end up on 14.065 because that's where everyone else is. So, this time I didn't - 1.836 MHz, 10 watts, and off down the garden for a cup of tea.

I pop back a bit later and there's a 2-way (heard and hearing, which Opera decorates with the label "QSO") with RX3DHR, in KO94ks. That's 2700 km, approximately, which beats my previous DX of just under 2000 km. Bear in mind all my QSOs are low power, if not strictly QRP.

Opera is worth a try if you like this sort of digital mode. It's all a bit low-tech in comparison with WSPR. The WSPR algorithm looks state-of-the-art. Opera's is a twist on QRSS CW so, as I write, the rig is being keyed by the soundcard sending an Opera beacon. Allegedly, the performance is beter than WSPR. I have yet to corroborate that - The consensus of opinion seems to be that it's about the same, but since far fewer souls spend their lives in Opera, WSPR gets far more DX because there are more people playing.

Could do with a few more on some bands though. 2m WSPR beaconing seems to be an inefficient way of warming the shack up...

Log Analysis

What to do on a quiet day, but look at your logs. I have been meaning to do this for some time. I extracted the last 1000 or so QSOs from my log (kept in HRD) and I've analysed distance, by band. I was convinced that I was getting the "best" results out of my kit on 17 metres. It appears that this may not be the case!

The graphic isn't very clear (click on it) but I poured the exported data into "R"(a stats package) and got it to process it for me. The distance is in km. It's worth saying that virtually none of these contacts are SSB or FM - I am almost exclusively digital or CW

20m appears to have provided me with my best DX(a ZL), so it retains its label as a DX workhorse of the bands. followed by 10m, 15m and then 17m. I'd say 12m was underperforming - probably my antenna. I don't spend much time on 30m. I find 40m crowded. I don't stay on 80 or 160m long enough in the evening to pick up real DX.

What is interesting is that the median distance - half the contacts are above, half below - (indicated by the bold line in the middle) on 20m is way down on the median distance on 17m - I think this is caused by heavy local (i.e. European) QRM drowning out the DX, hence my impression that 17m at M0DEV is more DX-y. If you have a very high presence of european stations, then you won't hear the DX - even though it is there. Indeed, 17m at M0DEV has the highest Median. Of course, I am probably skewing this by going after DX contacts calling CQ, and ignoring the locals. The 20m distribution (and 15m and 40m) is classic positive skew, bunched up at the bottom end. The 17m distribution looks more "interesting".

It would be interesting to take this further, and try to tease out factors which are caused by my equipment, and factors which are really "there".

So what does it all add up to? Very litte!