Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.20010502104150.2dc7f9ec@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 10:41:50
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "Rik Strobbe" <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: Re: LF: Re:  more Wolf tests
In-reply-to: <3AEFD6C6.26493.1590F2@localhost>
References: <3AEF2391.4DCDA493@usa.net>
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 Mike & group,

While WOLF is in an 'experimental stage' the carrier can be usefull for
tuning purposes. But if you can detect a 2 or 3 second carrier, a DFCW QSO
won't take more time than a WOLF QSO. So why make a simple thing difficult ?

But wasn't it the (cl)aim that WOLF would be superior to primitive modes
such as QRSS and DFCW ? If I remember well WOLF was given a 10dB credit
over QRSS at 10 sec./dot, so assuming you want to copy a WOLF signal that
is just 'at the edge' a 100 sec. carrier would be needed to make it visible
with spectrogram-like software.

73, Rik  ON7YD

>Yes. That is exactly why I have suggested that a WOLF transmission should 
>have a few seconds of unmodulated carrier (or perhaps identifiably modulated 
>- wobble) every few minutes. Also that any GUI-based WOLF front end should 
>include a spectrogram-type window. This would allow WOLF transmissions to 
>be seen without knowing in advance that they were there, and would also help 
>frequency alignment. This would overcome one of the real difficulties in
using 
>the mode for random QSOs.
>
>Mike, G3XDV (IO91VT)
>http://www.lf.thersgb.net