Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.20010411153434.219f812a@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:34:34
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "Rik Strobbe" <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: Re: LF: wolf
In-reply-to: <3AD4C8FB.94F65F10@ns.sympatico.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Hello John,

In fact Valerio's signal looks rather clean for BPSK, so I guess that he
did a similar thing as Jim and 'cleaned up' the output spectrum by AM
envelopping the signal. Real BPSK (hard phase switching) has a much wider
bandwidth, Jim (M0BMU) has a nice picture this.
I am sure that one 1 W ERP real BPSK signal can cause enough QRM to make
weak signal reception impossible for any other station in a 1000km range.

For sure the sitation in Europe is very different from the US lowfer scene.
In Europe we have over 100 stations active on 2.1kHz wide band (I believe
the south UK there are over a dozen stations in a 100 by 100km square). Any
of this stations can run up to 1W ERP if he (she) wants.
In the US (lowfer) the band is 35kHz wide and stations are limited to 1W
input and 15m wire as antenna, so unless you live in a salt water swamp the
ERP will be no more than a few mW.

73, Rik  ON7YD

At 14:13 11/04/01 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi all,  I saw the spectrum plot Alberto provided of Valerio's wolf
>transmission. What an ugly sight.    It takes between 15 and 20 Hz of
>specytum space.
>         With 30 sec dots I can receive and separate a station every 250
>millihertz.  In other words In the space of one wolf transmission  60 to
>80 QRSS stations could be trying to have QSOs.   I do not doubt the fact
>that the wolf experiments are worthwhile from a testing of technology
>point of view.  I feel, however, that wolf as currently configured is
>not a worthwhile mode for general amateur operation in the small 136kHz
>band.  I especially resent the attitude of VA3LK that he would transmit
>regardless of potential QRM to others as stated in one of his emails.
>        Current transmissions above 137.5 kHz will not cause much
>trouble.  As interest in the band grows and more  countries get on the
>band,  We will have to very carefully choose modes of operation which
>provide the best combination of bandwidth consumed compared with
>communication efficiency, coupled with ease of use.   So far I vote for
>DFCW and QRSS.  I  looked last night but saw nil.
>       73 de John VE1ZJ
>
>
>