Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-ma06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id D692F3800007B; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:36:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TBqq5-00082s-3z for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:35:01 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TBqq4-00082h-2E for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:35:00 +0100 Received: from out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.243]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TBqq1-00049G-HF for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:34:58 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhMMAOS8UFBcHn5K/2dsb2JhbABFgkuDPJ8KA4RokE4Cf4EIghsFAQEEAQgBAQMWMwIUCggGAQEDBQIBAxEEAQEKIQICFAEEGgYWCAYTCgECAgEBh20DBgqpHIk3C4lVii1jG4E3g16BEgONY5EvhmyCZg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,410,1344207600"; d="scan'208,217";a="47228637" Received: from host-92-30-126-74.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.30.126.74]) by out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 12 Sep 2012 18:34:56 +0100 Message-ID: <00b301cd910c$e93a9ca0$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <66C690FA65054015B54D3DC3A6699556@AGB> <8CF5F1C3F556E0D-1A4C-500CE@webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:34:49 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 3.8 (+++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Never replace the MORSE KEY, you do at your peril !! Other modes come and go but MORSE lives on All Radio Operators know this. G3KEV ----- Original Message ----- From: Markus Vester To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Cc: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 4:39 PM Subject: Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? [...] Content analysis details: (3.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [62.24.128.243 listed in list.dnswl.org] 1.0 FSL_XM_419 Old OE version in X-Mailer only seen in 419 spam -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.8 FSL_UA FSL_UA 1.9 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 X-Scan-Signature: 3baad269c730f433fa7a2a39996c9383 Subject: Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B0_01CD910C.E9016430" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d600e5050c80a1778 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01CD910C.E9016430 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Never replace the MORSE KEY, you do at your peril !! Other modes come and go but MORSE lives on All Radio Operators know this. G3KEV ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Markus Vester=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Cc: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk=20 Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 4:39 PM Subject: Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? Hi Graham, LF, wow such a flood of incoming mails... > Well yes Joe (K) is right, BPSK is better, but needs a linear system = to transmit .... Joe (EA) has stated, he could extract another 6 dB if = the modulation system was changed ...... BPSK vs. ASK? Unfiltered PSK _can_ be sent by a nonlinear transmitter, = it's only very unfriendly to others due to the spectral sidebands from = the sharp transitions. But so is unshaped ASK!=20 In simple words, ASK steps from 1 to 0 wheras BPSK transitions go from = +1 to -1. So with BPSK you get twice the sensitivity, along with twice = the keyclicks. If you compare ASK at a given peak power to BPSK sent at = -6 dB, you end up at same sensitivity and same clicks. Only average = power for PSK would be half (25% instead of 50%). Phase-continuous FSK as used in WSPR is much more gentle in that = respect. There are no steps in the waveform, thus the click spectrum = falls off much more rapidly. > WLOF is already coded and makes use of multi pass to gain s/n, but = is psk and needs a liner system ...and is not a one-pass decode system , = when the s/n is low .but at -41 dB, by what ever scale, OP32 is well = into the noise in single pass The advantage of such a "multipass" system is that it can be adaptive = to SNR, ie. a strong signal decodes fast, and only for a weak one you = have to wait longer. > We didn't set out to produce a low level beacon mode, it was = supposed to be a replacement for the CW key ..=20 Apparently Opera is functioning as a beaconing system, and nothing = else. You basically transmit one information ("I'm there"), and you get = a reply by the internet ("I see you"). Am I missing something here?=20 Sooner or later, someone here will surely ask that question: On the = other hand, if you are aiming for two way communication, and there is no = SNR advantage, then why would you want to replace the Morse key in the = first place?=20 > The Op structure allows for up to 50% loss of signal randomly along = the time line, ie first 50%, last 50% or randomly distributed=20 Yes with Opera's distributed and redundant coding you can chop off = half of the signal time. WSPR can do the very same stunt. Both will need = more SNR during the remaining half, at least 3 dB, probably a bit more. = Even DFCW could do it if you had sent two repetitions at double speed = ;-)=20 > and over a real path , the Op system is able to make use of deep = variations in fading and is immure to phase and Doppler distortion. Yes of course, on the air there are other factors than "AWGN" white = noise. Spherics and impulsive QRM have to be dealt by appropriate = (preferably wide-band) noise blanking strategies. Fading and Doppler = (which is only milliHz on LF) may have to be dealt with. But it remains = to be proven that under these conditions Op is so much superior that it = can make up for the 6 dB shortfall under lab conditions. =20 > But, 'the eating of the pudding is in the proof of the making'? = Stefan, last night reaching ua0aet over land, with 7 dB left in the = system, taking some big bites out of the distance records on 136 Yes, a very nice result! I can state without envy that Stefan has a = good signal, and it is going further than others. But does that really = make a point for Opera, versus any other mode?=20 Graham, I'm in no way against Opera mode per se. But I have to say = that I dislike the bragging.=20 > The best thing about the Op system is 'The number of reason's it = cannot work' :) Hey, that's what all those perpetuum mobile inventors keep claiming = ;-) Best 73, Markus (DF6NM) =20 Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR?=20 Von: Graham =20 Datum: Mi, 12 Sept 2012 12:24 pm=20 Re: LF: Fwd: Re: Ideas for a slower WSPR for the 137 khz band Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:08 PM Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR?=20 Datum: Mi, 12 Sept 2012 4:16 pm=20 Re: LF: Fw: LOST TRACK=20 Datum: Mi, 12 Sept 2012 5:18 pm=20 ... -----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mitteilung-----=20 Von: Graham An: rsgb_lf_group Verschickt: Mi, 12 Sept 2012 4:16 pm Betreff: Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? Well its mostly a silly argument as the systems are totally = different =20 , in terms of data processing and the operation of the decoder and = the =20 technical level of the equipment needed to tx/rx the mode=20 =20 We didn't set out to produce a low level beacon mode , it was = supposed =20 to be a replacement for the CW key .. the longer times where as a = result of studying the various EU/VK qrsss plots and reasoning = that =20 over 50% of the 32 min cycle could be above the decode level ... = the =20 rest (will be) history :)=20 =20 DSP and associated 'Numeric Processing' facts and fictions are = very =20 difficult to separate , not helped by the ongoing pie fight out to = 'our' west , however... so far so good !=20 =20 The best thing about the Op system is 'The number of reason's it = cannot work' :)=20 =20 G..=20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01CD910C.E9016430 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =EF=BB=BF
Never replace the MORSE KEY, you do at your = peril=20 !!
Other modes come and go but MORSE lives = on
All Radio Operators know this.
 
G3KEV
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Markus=20 Vester
Cc: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups= .co.uk=20
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, = 2012 4:39=20 PM
Subject: Re: LF: RE: = [rsgb_lf_group] Re:=20 LF: slow WSPR?

Hi = Graham,=20 LF,
 
wow such a flood of incoming mails...
 
> Well yes Joe (K) is right, BPSK is better, but needs a = linear system=20 to transmit .... Joe (EA) has stated, he could extract another 6 dB if = the=20 modulation system was changed ......
 
BPSK vs. ASK? Unfiltered PSK _can_ be sent by a nonlinear = transmitter,=20 it's only very unfriendly to others due to the spectral sidebands from = the=20 sharp transitions. But so is unshaped ASK!
 
In simple words, ASK steps from 1 to 0 wheras BPSK transitions go = from +1=20 to -1. So with BPSK you get twice the sensitivity, along with twice = the=20 keyclicks. If you compare ASK at a given peak power to BPSK sent at -6 = dB, you=20 end up at same sensitivity and same clicks. Only average power for PSK = would=20 be half (25% instead of 50%).
 
Phase-continuous FSK as used in WSPR is much more gentle in that = respect.=20 There are no steps in the waveform, thus the click spectrum falls off = much=20 more rapidly.
 
> WLOF is already coded and makes use of multi pass to gain = s/n, but=20 is psk and needs a liner system ...and is not a one-pass decode system = , when=20 the s/n is low .but at -41 dB, by what ever scale, OP32 is well into = the noise=20 in single pass
 
The advantage of such a "multipass" system is that it can be = adaptive to=20 SNR, ie. a strong signal decodes fast, and only for a weak one you = have to=20 wait longer.
 
> We didn't set out to produce a low level beacon mode, it was = supposed to be a replacement for the CW key ..
 
Apparently Opera is functioning as a beaconing system, and = nothing else.=20 You basically transmit one information ("I'm there"), and you get a = reply by=20 the internet ("I see you"). Am I missing something here?
 
Sooner or later, someone here will surely ask that question: On = the other=20 hand, if you are aiming for two way communication, and there is no SNR = advantage, then why would you want to replace the Morse key in the = first=20 place?
> The Op structure allows for up to 50% loss of signal = randomly along=20 the time line, ie first 50%, last 50% or randomly distributed
 
Yes with Opera's distributed and redundant coding you can chop = off half=20 of the signal time. WSPR can do the very same stunt. Both will need = more SNR=20 during the remaining half, at least 3 dB, probably a bit more. Even = DFCW could=20 do it if you had sent two repetitions at double speed ;-)
 
> and over a real path , the Op system is able to make use of = deep=20 variations in fading and is immure to phase and Doppler = distortion.
 
Yes of course, on the air there are other factors than "AWGN" = white=20 noise. Spherics and impulsive QRM have to be dealt by appropriate = (preferably=20 wide-band) noise blanking strategies. Fading and Doppler (which is = only=20 milliHz on LF) may have to be dealt with. But it remains to be proven = that=20 under these conditions Op is so much superior that it can make up for = the 6 dB=20 shortfall under lab conditions. 
 
> But, 'the eating of the pudding is in the proof of the = making'?=20 Stefan, last night reaching ua0aet over land, with 7 dB left in the = system,=20 taking some big bites out of the distance records on 136
 
Yes, a very nice result! I can state without envy that Stefan has = a good=20 signal, and it is going further than others. But does that really make = a point=20 for Opera, versus any other mode?
 
Graham, I'm in no way against Opera mode per se. But I have to = say that I=20 dislike the bragging.
 
> The best thing about the Op system is 'The number of = reason's it=20 cannot work' :)
 
Hey, that's what all those perpetuum mobile inventors keep = claiming=20 ;-)

Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)

 
Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? =
Von:=20 Graham <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk>=20
Datum: Mi, 12 Sept 2012 12:24 pm
 
Re: LF: Fwd: Re: Ideas for a slower WSPR for the 137 khz = band
Sent:=20 Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:08 PM
 
Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR?
Datum: Mi, 12 = Sept=20 2012 4:16 pm
 
Re: LF: Fw: LOST TRACK
Datum: Mi, 12 Sept 2012 5:18 pm=20
...
-----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: = Graham=20 <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk>
An: rsgb_lf_group=20 <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Verschickt: Mi, 12 Sept 2012 = 4:16=20 pm
Betreff: Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR?

Well  its mostly a silly  argument  as  the =
 systems  are totally  different  

, in terms of  data  processing  and the  operation of the  decoder  and =
the  

technical  level  of the  equipment needed to tx/rx  the mode 

 

We didn't  set out to produce a  low level  beacon  mode , it was =
supposed  

to  be a replacement  for the  CW key ..  the longer times  where as  a  =


result of studying the  various    EU/VK  qrsss  plots  and  reasoning =
that  

over 50% of the  32  min cycle could  be  above the  decode level ... =
the  

rest  (will be) history :) 

 

DSP and  associated  'Numeric Processing'   facts and  fictions  are  =
very  

difficult to separate  , not  helped by the  ongoing  pie fight  out to  =


'our'  west , however... so far  so good ! 

 

The  best  thing  about the  Op system is  'The  number of reason's  it  =


cannot  work'  :) 

 

G..

------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01CD910C.E9016430--