Return-Path: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>
Received: (qmail 23025 invoked from network); 3 May 2001 00:44:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO murphys-inbound.servers.plus.net) (212.159.14.225)  by excalibur.plus.net with SMTP; 3 May 2001 00:44:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 7972 invoked from network); 3 May 2001 00:44:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70)  by murphys with SMTP; 3 May 2001 00:44:20 -0000
X-Priority: 3
Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.16 #2) id 14v78C-0006PY-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Thu, 03 May 2001 01:38:08 +0100
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Received: from jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca ([142.177.1.6] helo=mail-ns00s0.ns.sympatico.ca) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #2) id 14v78A-0006PT-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 03 May 2001 01:38:06 +0100
Received: from ns.sympatico.ca ([142.177.88.54])          by mail-ns00s0.ns.sympatico.ca (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3          release 223 ID# 0-68925U141000L141000S0V35) with ESMTP id ca          for <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>;          Wed, 2 May 2001 21:36:54 -0300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID: <3AF0E14F.F98BD29@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 00:40:47 -0400
From: "John Currie" <john.currie@ns.sympatico.ca>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-DIAL  (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: Re:  more Wolf tests
References: <3AEFD6C6.26493.1590F2@localhost> <3AEFEEDB.6845.73A06A@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Hi Mike I inadvertantly deleted your last comments on WOLF could you please resend
     73 de John VE1ZJ

Mike Dennison wrote:

> ON7YD wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Hmmm. I was originally suspicious of that figure, and have seen nothing yet
> that supports it. I am not aware of any amateur radio WOLF reception so far
> that would not have been viable using QRSS, but the technique is at an early
> stage.
>
> I am still keen on WOLF on the promise that it can produce results from a
> relatively short peak in conditions, whilst QRSS/DFCW needs a longer period
> of enhancement. The really big peaks - the ones that would allow you, for
> instance, to get through - last only a few minutes. Even if it is no better than 3s
> dot DFCW, it may be an improvement in terms of time. This time factor was
> identified this winter as the greatest barrier to regular two-way transcontinental
> QSOs.
>
> Also, I am not suggesting that the carrier should provide anything readable,
> merely showing that a signal is there. This could be well down on an 'M'
> QRS/DFCW transmission.
>
> I remain skeptical but fascinated.
>
> Mike, G3XDV (IO91VT)
> http://www.lf.thersgb.net