WSPRlite Becomes Even Better

An awful lot of people are now using WSPRlite, if the number of 200mW stations evident on the bands is anything to go by.

Recently, SOTABEAMS has added some very nice and very easy-to-use analysis tools that make DXPlorer, the associated webware, even more useful and powerful than it was at its launch.

Over the past few days, I ran my vertical delta loop at 200mW, comparing with a very efficient station - a 52 foot dipole at 25 feet up - in Northern Ireland.

My delta, basking in the glorious late May sunshine

Here, firstly, is the plot of distances reached:

Now, the excellent performance of these two systems shouldn't be underestimated.  Here's a comparison with a station in England, who has until recently been my reference station for being one of the top performers (a horizontal loop).  All other stations I've compared with are either much the same as this plot, or the other stations are much worse:

Now, the GI station comes in on distances at what we can say is an identical performance to my station.  However, the recent addition of simultaneous spot analysis on DXPlorer reveals a wealth of new information.

In particular, it shows that, whilst the GI station is reaching the same distances, he does so, for the most part, with a significantly worse signal than mine.  All spots to the right of 0dB (positive numbers) were stronger from my delta than the GI's 52 foot dipole.  That's very useful information.

The outliers are largely irrelevant, being transient effects of QRM that suppressed the reception of one signal over another.

So, this little tool, costing merely £60, plus an annual premium mode fee of £20 after the first year, really does pay for itself in the sheer amount of valuable data analysis it performs with ease.  It shouldn't be underestimated, because this is the first time in amateur radio's history that an entirely objective, human-free comparison of antenna systems has become available to all of us.

I just wish the absolute power output of each WSPRlite could be as readily confirmed as accurate.  One former electronics industry expert told me his 200mW was closer to 180mW.  I think, somehow, that unknown power output has to be addressed by some means or another.