Message-ID: <002e01bfa6b8$71b761a0$3ae11ac3@g4jnt>
From: "Andy Talbot" <drassew2@interalpha.co.uk>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: LF: Re: Slow CW Sensitivity Measurments
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 09:54:18 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Which shows that the processing by eye is about as good as the processing by
a good CW ear about 10dB S/N in their respective bandwidths.  I think I
would agree with the 30 Hz effective ear bandwidth when listening to a tone.
Think what could be achieved in a 0.03 Hz bandwidth !
 Both these are energy detection methods, the electrical equivalent being a
rectifier on the output of the IF strip driving a chart recorder.   Now if
instead of the signal being switched on and off, it was switched plus or
minus.  The movement is twice as far and another 3dB is gained.  That is
PSK.

Andy G4JNT

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Geri' Kinzel, DK8KW <DK8KW@compuserve.com>
To: LF-Reflector <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>; amrad <lf@amrad.org>
Date: 15 April 2000 09:37
Subject: LF: Slow CW Sensitivity Measurments


>Hello friends,
>
>I made some laboratory tests this morning to get some indication about the
>ability to communicate with signals below noise level using Slow-CW.
>
>I used a calibrated frequency synthesizer (Adret 2230), an 0-120 dB
>attenuator in 1 dB steps (Schlumberger BMD500) and my Praecitronic MV61
>Selective Level Meter. With a BNC t-connector I fed the normal band noise
>including loran lines on 137.500 kHz (+/- 50 Hz) to one side of the
>t-connector, and the output of the frequency synthesizer to the other side.
>
>With the attenuator I made sure that a 0 dBm (50 Ohm) signal with the
>synthesizer corresponds to a -80 dBu (75 Ohm) signal at the MV62
>(plus/minus 1 dB).
>
>The band was quite this morning, with a background noise around -110 dBu
>(approx. S 4) and Loran lines clearly visible.
>
>Using the 100 Hz bandwidth of the MV62 and the cascaded 250 Hz/500 Hz CW
>filters of the IC-746 I checked the signal by ear as well as with the
>Spectrogram software with the normal parameters I use for "3-5
>second-dot-length" Slow-CW (5.5k sample rate, 16bit mono, 16384 points FFT
>= 0.3 Hz resolution, 60 dB scale, 300 ms time scale, 10 x average) and
>obtained the following results:
>
>Injected        Received                Comment
>Signal  Signal
>Strength        Strength
>
>
>- 20 dBm        - 100 dBu               good audible CW signal (approx. S6)
>- 30 dBm        - 110 dBu               CW signal approx. equal to
>background noise (S4), just can be copied
>- 35 dBm        - 115 dBu               boundary for aural CW, signal just
>detectable by ear
>- 45 dBm        - 125 dBu               good "O" signal in Slow-CW, signal
>same level as Loran-lines
>- 50 dBm        - 130 dBu               still good readable Slow-CW signal
>"M"
>- 55 dBm        - 135 dBu               Slow-CW just detectable "T"
>- 60 dBm        - 140 dBu               Slow-CW signal not any more
>detectable with above listed parameters
>
>
>Conclusions:
>
>Slow-CW has a 20 dB signal level advantage over normal (aural CW), which
>means that the minimum detectable and/or readable Slow-CW signal that might
>just allow communication lies 20 dB below the signal, that can just be
>detected and/or decoded by a trained CW-operator's ear (yes, I consider
>myself to be a trained CW operator ...). If I consider the "CW-operator's
>ear/brain bandwidth" to be 30 Hz, this roughly corresponds to the
>bandwidths used (0.3 vs 30 Hz).
>
>I would be interested to get your comments or own measurements on this
>subject. I do not yet have sufficient experience with Spectran to make full
>advantage of this software, so I would like to hear about that software as
>well.
>
>
>Best 73
>
>Geri, DK8KW (W1KW)
>
>
>
>