Envelope-to: dave@picks.force9.co.uk
Delivery-date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:07:03 +0000
Message-ID: <4378C41C.90803@freenet.de>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:06:36 +0000
From: Wolf DL4YHF <dl4yhf@freenet.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <67398444.20051114165749@t-online.de> <001701c5e936$9c06e310$020aa8c0@Laptop>
In-Reply-To: <001701c5e936$9c06e310$020aa8c0@Laptop>
Subject: Re: LF: Re: TA Nov, 13/14th
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Greetings all,

John wrote:

>
> XES did run in the WOLF 2.5 speed all night. I will use the 5 b/s rate 
> tonight with 50 watts, starting around 2330 UTC. Given WOLF's error 
> correction with copy being built up over a period of time, the slower 
> data rate may not be an advantage, as it is with uncorrected PSK.
>
This was also my impression when thinking about the lowest useful 
signalling rate. 2.5 b/s may give the WOLF decoder too few bits over a 
single lift in propagation to recognize the sync pattern; furthermore: 
the lower the bitrate, the larger the requirements for frequency 
stability (which includes the 'calibration' of the soundcard sampling 
rate). I didn't check if the tolerance range isn't also divided by four 
when the signalling rate is divided by four.
John - please let me know any results of your local tests. Maybe there 
are one or two quirks in my modifications of Stewart's original 
algorithm, especially concerning the scaling of the 'frequency 
tolerance' parameter.

73,  Wolf  DL4YHF .

P.S: Off-frequency posting ... I will be watching 3597.000 kHz tonight 
in WOLF 5 mode, starting around 19:00 UT .