From: "Mike Dennison" <mike.dennison@rsgb.org.uk>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:15:15 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: LF: wolf
Message-ID: <3AD48313.12322.188BA97@localhost>
In-reply-to: <3AD4C8FB.94F65F10@ns.sympatico.ca>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

VE1ZJ 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.  

Ah, but the intention of WOLF is to get the information across much faster. 
You are better off comparing it to normal CW which occupies a similar 
bandwidth and take only a few minutes to complete a QSO.

The important thing is data transfer rate, ie bandwidth multiplied by the time it 
takes to get the message through. To turn your equation around, perhaps you 
can get 60 to 80 WOLF QSOs in the time it takes for one QRSS or DFCW 
QSO. 

I am keeping an open mind on this one, at least until WOLF is as friendly to 
use as QRSS, or never gets popular because it is still too complex. Plainly 
QRM to others will be an issue.

We have the next six months (of high QRN) to see what happens, or if 
something else comes along. I still like the idea of multi-tone (ie multi-
frequency), but this still trades bandwidth for transmission speed - as does 
DFCW.

73

Mike, G3XDV (IO91VT)
http://www.lf.thersgb.net