Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21958 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2001 07:59:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO warrior-inbound.servers.plus.net) (212.159.14.227) by excalibur.plus.net with SMTP; 28 Mar 2001 07:59:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 12784 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2001 07:59:41 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by warrior with SMTP; 28 Mar 2001 07:59:41 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.16 #2) id 14iAmp-00084r-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 08:54:35 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be ([134.58.10.6]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #2) id 14iAmo-00084m-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 08:54:34 +0100 Received: from LCBD15.fys.kuleuven.ac.be (LCBD15.fys.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.80.15]) by mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be (8.9.3/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA124868 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:54:11 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.20010328085558.2f57efaa@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be> X-Sender: pb623250@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (16) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 08:55:58 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org From: "Rik Strobbe" Subject: Re: LF: RE: WOLF (BPSK) modulation continuous phase modulation. In-reply-to: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: >However, I believe the object of Rik's proposal was to decrease bandwidth >while retaining as much simplicity in the system as possible. If one can >abide the slower phase transitions of the filtered signal, and the modest >increase in bandwidth from not having dragged out the transitions even >further, the technique should work at moderate power levels. It's a >collection of trade-offs, as is anything in engineering. Hello John and group, That is 100% correct, my aim is to find a trade-off between simplicity and bandwidth. This is standard practice for any CW transmitter where key-clicks are surpressed to an acceptable level. If one would want a CW transmission with absolute minimal key-clicks the same kind of envelloping as used with PSK would be needed, the soft keying we use is a compromise. The main reason why 'rude BPSK' has a relative large bandwidth (compared to CW) is because : - the 180 degrees phase jumps are the equivalent of an extreme hard keying - the BPSK sidebands are 6dB stronger than CW sidebands (this is directly related to the 1/-1 switching versus 1/0 switching that gives BPSK a 6dB advantage over CW). My goal is to make the phase transition 'less hard' in order to reduce the bandwidth of a (10BPS) BPSK transmission to that of a normal keyed (12WPM) CW transmission. BTW, another idea : What happens if you send a BPSK (instant phase switching) as reference signal to a PLL ? The reaction time of the PLL would depend on the feedback circuitery, maybe this could also be used to get 'soft phase transistions'. At 136kHz the whole PLL could be incorporated in a single CMOS4046, just 1 cheap IC and half a dozen resistors/capacitors might do the job. 73, Rik ON7YD