Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20563 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2001 21:57:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO warrior-inbound.servers.plus.net) (212.159.14.227) by excalibur.plus.net with SMTP; 16 Apr 2001 21:57:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 27955 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2001 21:57:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by warrior with SMTP; 16 Apr 2001 21:57:07 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.16 #2) id 14pGuP-0005jE-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 22:51:45 +0100 Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au ([203.26.10.16]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #2) id 14pGuN-0005j9-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 22:51:43 +0100 Received: from steve (ppp166.dyn154.pacific.net.au [210.23.154.166]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA19087 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 07:51:11 +1000 Message-ID: <004d01c0c6bf$6afea3a0$0301a8c0@steve> From: "Steve Olney" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <63.14878f3e.28088e1e@aol.com> <003e01c0c53a$29315d90$0700000a@parissn2> <005301c0c614$19889180$0301a8c0@steve> <007f01c0c683$5af3b3b0$0700000a@parissn2> Subject: LF: Re: [TECH] WOLF, FDK, AFK, etc. Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 07:51:31 +1000 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: ----- Original Message ----- From: Stewart Nelson To: Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 12:41 AM Subject: LF: [TECH] WOLF, FDK, AFK, etc. > Hi Steve and all, > > Sorry that some statements on my WOLF page might be misleading. > OK > > You are also correct that in the special case of dual tones symmetrically > located about the carrier frequency, in the absence of filtering, the penalty > can be avoided. > OK > > However, I don't think that this is particularly interesting, > because if the number of frequency differences is small (2 or 4), the signal > is very similar to WOLF (BPSK with some redundancy added to aid tracking). > As FDK came well before WOLF I would prefer you said "WOLF is very similar to FDK" :-) Just joking :-) But either way, this can be misleading as WOLF is, as you say, the well known BPSK mode with extra redundancy for tracking. FDK is only similar to BPSK in terms of a possible way it can be generated. Its spectrum over a 60 second epoch (the initial character duration for now) looks identical to a two tone SSB test signal (assuming linear) and bears no resemblance to BPSK. > > If it's large, e.g. a pair for each letter of the alphabet, I don't see a > good way to track the signal when it is very weak. > If I understand correctly, you use a tracking tone which doesn't actually transmit character data. So although it does transmit information (tracking frequency), so ultimately does have a beneficial effect on S/N. What is the loss and what is the gain for this method ? > > Your web page doesn't have any information on how such tracking might be accomplished >So, IMO, although a strong FDK signal can be received without the need for good > frequency accuracy, in the weak signal case it has needless complexity with no real benefit. > Essentially the same as WOLF, the difference being that the tracking is inherent in the signal which transmits character data. In FDK (or Wanjina as I now call it to try and hose down the confusion with DFCW / VFSKCW) the two tones are there during the 60 second character duration. By taking the mid-frequency of the tones you get the tracking frequency. This is used to improve the S/N during detection. FDK doesn't waste time/energy by transmitting a separate tracking tone. I can't see that this is any worse than WOLF. > > That brings us around to AFK (known in the literature as m-ary FSK), which > is IMO the technically best system for weak signal LF. I will admit that > BPSK was chosen for WOLF, for the simple reason that many LowFERs already had > the ability to transmit it, and it would be relatively easy for others to > gain the capability. Like almost everything else in engineering, it was > an economic tradeoff. > Understood. But I can't help thinking that if you took your own advice you wouldn't have started on WOLF and not achieved the excellent results you have !!! :-) Just goes to show that there is a time for theory, but reality has the final word :-) > > But I really believe that if it is possible to complete a transatlantic LF > QSO in one hour, with a signal that is about 1 Hz wide, AFK is the way to go. > Agreed > The main problem is that it can presently only be generated with an HF SSB > transceiver feeding an LF transverter, plus taking special measures to ensure > excellent stability. > > So IMO the real challenge for AFK is to develop a very simple exciter > which can generate this format, as well as others. An exciter is fairly easy I would have thought. As we have two channels available from our soundcard it is a trivial task to generate two identical tones in quadrature. Feeding this into a mixer fed with quadrature RF signals allows generation of AFK via the Third Method. All pretty standard stuff for Hams. An even simpler method might be via the Fourth Method. I just wish I had more time !!!!! A final note. I repeat my congratulations on your success with WOLF. The comments here and previously are not meant as criticism. I know how hard it is to keep everything consistent as things and ideas develop over time. 73s Steve Olney (VK2ZTO/AXSO - QF56IK : Lat -33 34 07, Long +150 44 40) ============================================= HomePage URLs: http://www.qsl.net/vk2zto http://www.zeta.org.au/~ollaneg Containing:- ULF, ELF, VLF & LF Experimentation InfraSonic Experimentation Laser Comms DX Amateur Radio Astronomy =============================================