RSGB trying to stop VHF WSPR in IARU region 1

[Leigh VK2KRR]

Sent: 31 May 2016 22:43

To: General Managers

Subject: Recent VHF bandplan update

Dear RSGB,

I am a big advocate for VHF WSPR and administrator for the VHF WSPR world wide group on facebook. It has been brought to my attention that WSPR digital mode designations were recently removed from current band planning there.

What was written states -

VHF: Whilst WSPR works well at HF without formal band planning, there has been an ongoing problem in VHF where it is less optimum and has had inconsistent guidance. Having considered various harmonisation proposals from DARC, the meeting eventually agreed that removing the current 50, 70 and 144 MHz designations was actually a more flexible and more consistent approach, given the overall trend to a more generic approach for machine generated modes (MGM).

Could you please outline to me the stated problems of WSPR operation on the VHF bands there?

By removing the 50, 70 and 144 designations, are you implying that WSPR should not be used on these bands?

What is meant by inconsistent guidance?

Your information also states that WSPR is less optimum at VHF compared to HF? In what way is WSPR less optimum at VHF?

It has been shown that WSPR is more sensitive than any other mode on VHF and UHF and above. I use WSPR 24 hrs a day here on 70cm observing the tropospheric conditions and looking for duct openings and WSPR is always the first to spot weak DX paths. On VHF its the same for tropo and is also extremely good for E openings on the 6m band, I can only assume given that information that it would be the same on 70 MHz (we dont have this band in VK).

To state that WSPR is less than optimum on VHF is not at all correct and must come from sources that are un-educated in using the mode. We have seen paths completed from California to Hawaii over 4000 km on 2m WSPR and in Australia the longest observed path on 2m WSPR is 2933 km (using only 10 watts) which was converted to a JT65 contact and is the current digital mode record for 2m band. If people were encouraged to use WSPR on VHF im sure that more long paths would be found.

I have attached a couple of WSPR map images showing recent activity on 6m and 2m WSPR around EU. And a 6m map from January showing 6m WSPR bridging the pacific ocean to 3 stations in Australia.

If you need any advice or help on VHF (and above) WSPR please dont hesitate to contact me.

Regards

Leigh Rainbird

VK2KRR

________________________________________________________________

Dear Leigh,

As RSGB VHF Manager your email has come to me for a response.

I was one of the 30+ VHF managers from member societies across IARU Region 1 who unanimously voted to remove all designations of WSPR from the IARU Region 1 VHF band plan. This applies to all of IARU Region 1 member societies covering nearly 100 countries in Europe, Africa and all the way across Russia.

This unanimous vote was in response to a discussion paper initiated by the German national society DARC. The vote followed a discussion on the technical unsuitability of WSPR to indicate propagation conditions at VHF and UHF and the interference issues caused by a number of WSPR users. It was noted that there have been ongoing instances of interference by a small number, ~20, WSPR users on the 144MHz band across IARU Region 1 with internationally co-ordinated propagation beacons. These WSPR users have failed to adhere to the IARU Region 1 band plan and have been using an ad-hoc, illegitimate ‘dial’ frequency adopted in the USA of 144.489MHz. This has resulted in interference to propagation beacons on 144.490MHz.  Over the past 8 years despite significant publicity concerning the legitimate frequency of 144.4920 +/- 500Hz for WSPR Beacons in IARU Region 1 it only been used by a handful of amateur stations. The amateur band plans are put in place to minimise interference between different amateur usage. The VHF manager’s discussion concluded that the very small number of legitimate users across IARU Region 1 and the technical failings of WSPR at VHF it does not justify a frequency designation in the national and international band plans. Illegitimate users should be reminded that they are causing interference to others which could possibly be in breach of their licence conditions.

You ask for an outline of the failings of WSPR operation on the VHF bands, there are significant technical failings of WSPR for propagation measurement at VHF.

WSPR is a continuous phase 4 tone FSK protocol with a tone separation of 1.46 Hz. Unfortunately, most VHF and UHF propagation modes over moderate distances, impart a Doppler shift greater than 1.46Hz which often is changing as many propagation modes are unstable. This is completely different to the situation at LF/HF for which Joe Taylor K1JT designed WSPR, Joe Taylor did not intend WSPR to be used at VHF! The WSPR decoder only functions properly when the changing Doppler shift imposed by the propagation during the 110 second cycle is very small. This changing imposed Doppler shift behaves like transmitter drift and similar issues cause decoding problems with many of the other JT digital modes when used terrestrially at VHF. Before the IARU discussions, I had checked on WSPR signals in NW Europe over several weeks on 50 and 144MHz. On 144MHz only 20% of the many traces seen on a waterfall display produced decodes. This is clear evidence to me of the complete unsuitability of WSPR at VHF. Unfortunately, the decodes of a small percentage of signals are claimed by many as proof of the veracity of WSPR at VHF. In my experience CW Skimmer run with a simple SDR on the beacon sub-bands produces propagation results of 50 & 144MHz many times better than that available on wspr.net! For those that do not have such a capability there are a number of web sites which aggregate and plot maps such information. It may be that because we have a comprehensive network of traditional and digital VHF + UHF propagation beacons in Europe that we not recognize the utility of WSPR, despite its failings, in parts of the world with lower densities of VHF amateurs. It is also because of the high usage of these existing propagation beacons that the interference caused by illegitimate WSPR users becomes noticed!

You suggest that WSPR is more sensitive than any other mode on VHF and UHF and above.
Unfortunately, this statement is not quite true. In a laboratory test, with no variance in the propagation and no Doppler shift, WSPR will demonstrate the sensitivity as outlined in Joe Taylor K1JT’s papers. In simple tests, such as where relatively closely spaced stations reduce power and antenna gain, some of the high sensitivity is maintained. Reducing power over a short range with stable propagation is not a test of whether the mode will work over a different path with greater path loss and other contributing factors. Over longer length paths, 100+Km where the propagation is not 100% stable it is rare to register consistent decodes lower than -25. Over longer unstable paths, particularly those with aspects of scatter, multipath and aircraft reflections decoding results become random.

You also comment about expertise concerning WSPR. This is where you seem to disagree with the 30+ VHF experts that were gathered in Vienna last month! Most, like myself, have over 30 years of experience at all forms of VHF propagation and transmission modes including digital ones.
The 144MHz map which you attached included many transmissions by users operating outside the IARU Region 1 band plan regularly causing interference. Additionally, the two of your attached maps which attempt to show VHF activity in Europe on 50 and 144MHz have been rather badly polluted by user input mistakes. On many occasions in the past few weeks there have been users of WSPR.net who have entered a frequency of 50 or 144MHz whilst receiving on HF frequencies. This causes the creation of false path records of which there are at least two instances in your 144MHz maps. I spotted two more this morning, 1st June with Austrian and German stations recording reception of UK stations on 144MHz!

In conclusion I am in full support of my colleagues across IARU Region 1 that WSPR is not a mode which we do not wish to encourage at VHF. Particularly on frequencies where WSPR transmissions cause interference to other band users. The propagation maps produced are often of dubious quality and a poor propagation guide compared with many other real time sources. That having been stated, I however do not want to stop amateur experimentation on frequencies which do not cause interference to other band users.

73
John G4SWX
RSGB VHF Manager

[Glenn Elmore]

Leigh,

Oh boy
Thanks for sharing, but rather discouraging.

He (G4SWX) certainly has a different view from those of us here who have been using WSPR on VHF/UHF for the last ~6years!   I'm afraid that I can't agree with many of his assertions or his "facts".  But real facts may not matter to someone who thinks they already know the answer and has their mind made up.

Do you intend to respond?

Glenn n6gn

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "2 Meter WSPR" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 2-meter-wspr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 2-mete...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/2-meter-wspr.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Leigh VK2KRR]

Hi Glenn,

I thought I would present it to the people who are users of VHF/UHF WSPR first, from this group, and its also on the facebook group too.
I know the members on this google group probably have the most technical information and knowledge about WSPR use at VHF and above. Perhaps there needs to be a response as a group of all users which is contributed to by many people, not just from myself ?
There appears to be a severe reluctance to advocate WSPR use at VHF and above by many people who seem to be stuck on using CW for beaconing. To say that WSPR causes an issue being only 6 Hz or so transmissions in a 200 Hz wide bandwidth is wrong.
I dont really know what to do, I've advised others to just continue on as per normal, they have only really removed it from the bandplan, not said it cant be used. WSPR is not allocated a spot in the Australian bandplan either.
The so called VHF managers who came to this conclusion appear to be ill informed and ignorant, unaware or maybe even worried about the benefits of WSPR, as it does not fit what they think is traditional for beaconing and more and more people are using. If anything would find a path across the Atlantic, it would be WSPR in my opinion.

Need to see if other people have comments to add.

[Leigh VK2KRR]

Just something I've just written on the facebook page -

Another quote "These WSPR users have failed to adhere to the IARU Region 1 band plan and have been using an ad-hoc, illegitimate ‘dial’ frequency adopted in the USA of 144.489MHz. This has resulted in interference to propagation beacons on 144.490MHz. Over the past 8 years despite significant publicity concerning the legitimate frequency of 144.4920 +/- 500Hz for WSPR Beacons in IARU Region 1 it only been used by a handful of amateur stations."

RSGB may be un aware that 144.489 was not adopted by the USA its allocated as the world wide WSPR frequency as stated on the WSPR website.

Also, as VK6HAX drew attention to the RSGB website, where it states that 144.490 to 144.500 can be used by WSPR transmissions. So 144.490500 is the WSPR TX freq (+-200Hz) so this falls within that area OK.

If RSGB wishes to change the allocated 2m WSPR frequency, in my view, it should have been with consultation with Region 2 also and with the WSPR users as a whole. The whole point is to monitor existing paths and find new unknown paths or propagation. If different areas use different frequencies, this then becomes impossible.

I think most stations would be happy to run on 144.492 MHz? only a slight dial freq change. But this would need to be recognised on the WSPRnet site and implemented world wide. Anyone have more thoughts or comments?

[Glenn Elmore]

Leigh,
I don't know what to do either. It does seem to me a shame that with the multiple IARU regions and existing 'short' VHF mindset that the very structure, one of partitioning the globe into regions, hinders us from exploring some fascinating territory.  International, never mind intercontinental, communications is already demonstrated. QSTs recent ISS article showing a path from North America to Europe is only one obvious example using JT65. Had they been using WSPR-2 or, better, WSPR-15, it seems probably that not only would they have had a lot more S/N, with the attendant frequency precision they would likely have IDed the ISS vector and radar cross section as the mechanism sooner than they did.

I think you are correct that the problem is one of mindset and tradition. I'm not sure that any technical paper, exposing the errors of their information will even be read. 

It reminds me of a much older "bandplan".  In the early 1900's the spectrum "below 200m" was considered worthless and given to amateurs. What followed was the discovery of ionospheric propagation and the great utility of HF over the years since.  Now we seem ready to repeat the error from the inside. Hams seem ready to relegate spectrum 100 times shorter, 2m and above, as 'worthless' for international communications and complacent to continue that view.

Perhaps "we", maybe some from this list, would consider a WSPR-at-VHF-and-up article for a major publication such as RSGB, QST or even QEX.  I would be willing to assist but I have my hands full with other articles at the moment so can't come up with resources to do it all.

OTOH, as you say, this is not a legal body (yet) but only a 'plan'.  Perhaps it can be ignored since many inter-region VHF efforts are scheduled by the participants.  However, that method rules out the unexpected mechanisms and discoveries which have been the rule rather than the exception in much of science of the last couple of centuries.

Glenn n6gn

[n6gn]

Leigh,
In rereading what I wrote above, I see that I have made an unfair comparison.  If the Atlantic test described in the QST article did in fact use JT65 rather than CW, it would have been only a few dB less sensitive than WSPR-2. WSPR-15 could have provided another 10 dB of margin but needs 15 minutes and the ISS would likely have been out of range by the time the frame was over.  It would also likely have required a modified decoder to deal with the Doppler shift.

On that note, I've had some discussion with Steve Franke,K9AN, the co-author of the present WSJT-X WSPR decoder about modifications to handle moving WSPR signals, such as we see from ACS or WTVs.

Although we seldom get self-interference enough from these common propagation mechanisms to cause loss of decode, we only occasionally successful decodes, sometimes doubles, from ACS  or WTV signals. that is, While Joe's original belief that WSPR wasn't useful above VHF is emphatically incorrect, we haven't yet made the best use of all the signals that we *do* see. Having a decoder with the flexibility to track a variety of moving signals, ACS, WTVs, ISS reflections and (moving) Doppler shifted EME reflections, would make things a lot more interesting and potentially open us up to discovering even more mechanisms.

I'm still wondering if some more formal presentation of some of our discoveries and their applications to other ham radio pursuits might not be in order.  VHF/UHF and microwave DXers are already alerted to the prevalence of ACS and aircraft-related propagation mechanisms. I've found a couple of web pages about using ACS for DXing and contesting, but I don't think it's yet widely recognized that DX out to ~900 km is possible almost any time on any band given the right kind of preparation. The ISS-bounce/scatter press should help this but the possibility in conjunction with 24x7 automated  monitoring and reporting may not be.
There's no question in my mind that the WSPR database and reporting system has been almost as important as the WSPR code itself in generating the kind of worldwide enthusiasm we see for the mode.

So many interesting things to pursue and such finite time!

Best,

Glenn n6gn

[Line Printer]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2016, Leigh VK2KRR wrote:


(quoting a VHF expert:)

> ad-hoc, illegitimate ‘dial’ frequency adopted in the USA of 144.489MHz.
> This has resulted in interference to propagation beacons on 144.490MHz.
> Over the past 8 years despite significant publicity concerning the
> legitimate frequency of 144.4920 +/- 500Hz for WSPR Beacons in IARU Region
> 1 it only been used by a handful of amateur stations.

Durned Americans and their not so legit frequencies are once again making
a huge mess and leaving the rest of the planet to play the broom squad and
mop it up.

> This is completely
> different to the situation at LF/HF for which Joe Taylor K1JT designed
> WSPR, Joe Taylor did not intend WSPR to be used at VHF!

At least one person wonders if Joe Taylor K1JT concurs with the groups of
VHF experts at the failings of WSPR once the frequencies in use increases
above 30 MHz.

Interesting!

Kevin Martinez
KI6STW


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line Printer System | HODIE NATUS EST RADICI FRATER
lps at rahul 'dot' net | 645/6180 BOS/BCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------