Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7303 invoked from network); 18 Nov 1999 21:22:40 +0000 Received: from unknown (HELO magnus.force9.net) (195.166.128.27) by guiness.force9.net with SMTP; 18 Nov 1999 21:22:40 +0000 Received: (qmail 4614 invoked from network); 18 Nov 1999 21:21:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by magnus.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 18 Nov 1999 21:21:57 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11oYgr-0006xT-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:02:01 +0000 Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au ([203.26.10.16]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11oYgp-0006xO-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:02:00 +0000 Received: from steve (beefcake.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.12]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA23594 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 08:08:49 +1100 Message-ID: <199911182108.IAA23594@mailman.zeta.org.au> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 From: "Steve Olney" To: "RSGB LF Group" Subject: LF: VFSKCW stuff... Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 08:01:38 +1100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 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 X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: G'day All, To add a bit more info about VFSKCW, some advantages I noted in the earlier experiments (I haven't done any lately) was that under marginal conditions (e.g. QRN) I found VFSKCW easier to copy than QRSS. This was because the QRN can easily "fill in" a space making it difficult to distinguish between two dots and one dash. By inceasing the dot length such that the time for the overall QSO is the same as QRSS, these QRN crashes can more easily rejected than QRSS. In addition, the actual fact that information is largely carried not in the absence of signal, but the presence of the signal displaced, makes it easier for me to discern the pattern. Bear in mind that I cannot read morse by ear and only read the screen in terms of dots and dashes. It may be easier for me to do this as I have not been programmed to associate morse with sounds. I don't know. I did not do any quantitative evaluations at that earlier time, but you guys will be able to verify/refute this with actual tests. I am handicapped here as the nearest LF station is over a 1000Km away and do the tests by mixing external noise (including QRN) with the LF signal (reduced by an attenuator). Any feedback would be most appreciated. 73s Steve Olney (VK2ZTO/AXSO - QF56IK : Lat -33 34 07, Long +150 44 40) ============================================= LowFer URL: http://www.zeta.org.au/~ollaneg/lowfer.htm AXSO LF Experimental Station URL: http://www.zeta.org.au/~ollaneg/axsoextx.htm LF Receiving - FRG-100, CHA antenna LF Transmitting - 177.5/177.4kHz 8W - 7.6m vertical or CHA Modes - AM, SSB, PSK31, SSTV, Hellschreiber, QRSS and a new experimental mode - FDK. See this URL for more: http://www.zeta.org.au/~ollaneg/FDK.htm =============================================