Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23719 invoked from network); 27 Dec 2001 15:14:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO warrior.services.quay.plus.net) (212.159.14.227) by excalibur-qfe1-smtp-plusnet.harl.plus.net with SMTP; 27 Dec 2001 15:14:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 12376 invoked from network); 27 Dec 2001 15:14:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by warrior.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 27 Dec 2001 15:14:41 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16JcD5-0004wQ-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 15:12:43 +0000 Received: from antiochus-fe0.ultra.net ([146.115.8.188]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16JcCn-0004wD-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 15:12:25 +0000 Received: from comrex (207-172-245-61.s823.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.245.61]) by antiochus-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with SMTP id KAA11968 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 10:10:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001101c18ee8$f8f75480$09dc9384@ma.ultranet.com> From: "John Andrews" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <3C2A5DDD.F33E5C02@ns.sympatico.ca> <3C2AF4D6.B7C93C4F@netscapeonline.co.uk> <3C2B6EFB.BCBFB23@ns.sympatico.ca> Subject: Re: LF: 136 Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 10:11:49 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: John, et al: > About QRSS, DFCW es 7 freq . I find qrss to be very effective. I > believe DFCW is even more effective than QRSS because you can send info much > faster for the same signal to noise ratio. This makes sense because although > it takes same time to send a dot but the dashes are 3 times faster. It does > take up more spectrum space than QRSS but the greater efficiency will either > get the info across faster during condx of QSB or the transmitter can go > double the dot length and get the info across in the same time as QRSS for 3 > db improvement in received SNR. > The &FSK however takes up 3 times more spectrum space es I dont see any > benefit in speed/SNR improvement After last night, I think I'm with you on this one. The DFCW mode is my favorite, thus far. With 7FSK, my brain has trouble with all of the stuff on the screen. There were a lot of extra dots and short lines mixed in with it yesterday, and I don't think I could have ever properly decoded the signal. The situation was more noise-free the night before, and I got the M0BMU id's without too much trouble. The visually-decoded modes depend heavily on your mind's pattern recognition capability. I think the 7FSK stuff exceeds that, especially in the presence of noise. On the other hand, what I saw of Steve Olney's Wajina (sp?) mode last summer was impressive, though I didn't have the information to decode it at the time. Hopefully, he'll be able to do more with it when the U.S. Lowfer guys turn into Hifers next summer. Regarding spectrum space, we've got a nice efficiency demo going in the U.S. at present, with three stations sending QRSS60 id's on 0.5 Hz spacing on 182.200 kHz. It's been fascinating to watch the propagation each night. And there's room for more in the screen. John Andrews, W1TAG