Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1170; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=no version=3.1.3 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id t08MDpVl019740 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 23:13:51 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Y9LFH-0008KX-UZ for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 22:07:59 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Y9LFH-0008KO-Ka for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 22:07:59 +0000 Received: from out43-ams.mf.surf.net ([145.0.1.43]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9LFF-0000fN-UL for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 22:07:58 +0000 Received: from smtps.utwente.nl (smtp-o1.utsp.utwente.nl [130.89.2.9]) by outgoing2-ams.mf.surf.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id t08M7taA006397 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 23:07:56 +0100 Received: from utwks06146.ad.utwente.nl (utwks06146.ad.utwente.nl [130.89.13.213]) by smtps.utwente.nl (8.13.8) with ESMTP id t08M7tdS024266 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 23:07:55 +0100 Received: by utwks06146.ad.utwente.nl (Postfix, from userid 17643373) id B470345C0B25; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 23:07:55 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 23:07:55 +0100 From: Pieter-Tjerk de Boer To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Message-ID: <20150108220755.GA20377@cs.utwente.nl> Mail-Followup-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Bayes-Prob: 0.99 (Score 4.7, tokens from: utwente-out:default, base:default, @@RPTN) X-CanIt-Geo: ip=130.89.2.9; country=NL; region=Provincie Overijssel; city=Enschede; latitude=52.2195; longitude=6.8912; http://maps.google.com/maps?q=52.2195,6.8912&z=6 X-CanItPRO-Stream: utwente-out:default (inherits from utwente:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 0vNBy7UDh - 3a561e08ee68 - 20150108 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 10.1.3.10 X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) X-Scan-Signature: 118b9e608370528226a3c3b3aedcdda0 Subject: LF: Eb/N0 values for amateur modes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1888 A couple of days ago, Markus posted Eb/N0 numbers for WSPR and OPERA, for comparison to the BPSK VLF tests (see below). Some may be interested in a table with Eb/N0 values for some more amateur modes, which I composed some weeks ago for an article in the Dutch amateur radio magazine 'Electron': Needed SNR Net datarate Needed Mode in 2500 Hz in bits/s Eb/N0 Comments SSB voice +10 dB 20 +31 dB very rough estimate CW (ZRO-test, by ear) -18 dB 0.54 +16 dB based on avg.pwr; peak 3 dB higher CW (QRSS-3, waterfall) -26 dB 0.13 +14 dB same CW (RSCW software, 12 wpm) -12 dB 4 +13 dB same OPERA-2 -23 dB 0.23 +14 dB peak pwr. 3 dB higher; 2 dB lower if counting CRC-bits as information RTTY -5 dB 32 +14 dB PSK31 -10 dB 31 +9 dB WSPR -29 dB 0.45 +5 dB not counting energy in sync bits; otherwise 3 dB higher WSPR-15 -38 dB 0.056 +5 dB same JT65 (for EME) -24 dB 1.54 +5 dB same Coherent BPSK on VLF -57 dB 0.0058 -1 dB Theoretical limit -1.59 dB (The table is formatted for display using a fixed-width font.) I have to emphasize that the SNR and Eb/N0 values should be taken with a grain of salt, especially for the modes that do not use heavy FEC, since those don't have a no sharp threshold. The SNR values quoted come from a variety of sources on the web, and the BPSK/VLF line is based on Markus and Paul's experiments from last May (obviously, since I created the table before the recent experiments by Dex and Paul). 73, Pieter-Tjerk, PA3FWM On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 04:11:22PM +0100, Markus Vester wrote: > [....] > > The ultimate goal of this work has been to take decoding sensitivity close to > the theroretical limit. An universal metric for this is Eb/N0, the ratio of the > received signal energy per payload bit (Eb in Joules) and the noise spectral > power density (N0 in Watt/Hertz, equivalent to "noise energy" in Joules). The > Shannon limit for long messages spread to infinite bandwidth is > Eb/N0 = ln(2) = -1.59 dB, > which (similar to the speed of light) cannot be surpassed by any possible > encoding scheme. Paul's and Dex' experiments showed that his codes can come > within about a dB of this limit in a real long-distance propagation experiment. > > To put that into perspective, let's derive Eb/N0 figures for two popular > digital modes: > > WSPR-15 transmits 50 information bits in 15 minutes, ie one bit in 18 seconds. > The decoding threshold is -38 dB in 2.5 kHz, or -4 dBHz. This gives > Eb/N0 = 10 log(18) - 4 dB = +8.5 dB, > ie. about 10 dB above the Shannon limit. Note that although different speed > variants (eg WSPR-2) need different power, the minimum energy per bit has to > remain the same. > > Opera-32 carries 28 information bits in 32.6 minutes, ie. one bit in 70 > seconds. The threshold is about -39.5 dB in 2.5 kHz, (-5.5 dBHz), referenced to > the average power of the 50% dutycycle on-off keying. This gives > Eb/N0 = 10 log(70) - 5.5 dB = +13 dB > or about 14.5 dB above Shannon. Note however that for LF / VLF transmissions, > the limit will often be antenna voltage and peak power rather than average > power, which can result in a further 3 dB disadvantage for Opera against > frequency- or phase-modulated techniques. > > The opds correlation decoder can go about 9 dB lower than Opera. But of course > it can only find the best match from an a-priori defined list of callsigns, and > doesn't attempt to decode any message. > > However we must recognize that the amateur modes spend a significant part of > their energy to provide a reference for synchronisation, so not all of the Eb/ > N0 difference is due to less efficient encoding. The "nude" FEC-PSK mode > doesn't contain any such overhead. So it can only work when the link has a > stable phase (like on VLF), and the decoder has been given accurate information > on carrier frequency and symbol timing. > > All the best, > Markus (DF6NM) >