Return-Path: Received: from rly-me05.mx.aol.com (rly-me05.mail.aol.com [172.20.83.39]) by air-me10.mail.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILINME103-9ba4956b8e318d; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 18:23:37 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-me05.mx.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINME056-9ba4956b8e318d; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 18:23:17 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1LGiUf-0006o7-KN for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 23:22:53 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1LGiUf-0006nx-84 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 23:22:53 +0000 Received: from defout.telus.net ([199.185.220.240]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1LGiUd-0008T0-Ae for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 23:22:53 +0000 Received: from priv-edtnaa04.telusplanet.net ([75.157.132.237]) by priv-edtnes27.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <20081227232235.PITY3377.priv-edtnes27.telusplanet.net@priv-edtnaa04.telusplanet.net> for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:22:35 -0700 Received: from [192.168.1.66] (d75-157-132-237.bchsia.telus.net [75.157.132.237]) by priv-edtnaa04.telusplanet.net (BorderWare Security Platform) with ESMTP id 9D3F1A033C128548 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:22:46 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <4956B8C6.5090405@telus.net> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:22:46 -0800 From: Scott Tilley User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <4956BFEE.19110.2EE6D21@v.d.heide.on-line.de> In-Reply-To: <4956BFEE.19110.2EE6D21@v.d.heide.on-line.de> X-Karma: 0: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR and CW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Careful Klaus your using terms that our friend Mal doesn't understand and you may be approaching actually trying to rationalize with him... To him CW in any form is above the laws of Physics and only those anointed into the brotherhood of the Ditty/Dotty have been enlightened to the point of having complete understanding... The rest of us lacking membership in this secret brotherhood will never get it or have QSOs with the little DX stations in our heads... I await the usual Mal script: 1) Do you know who I am? Let me tell you how great I am... 2) I've worked Timbukto with a paper clip and a mW using CW. 3) Reason be damned I'm right even if I don't have a clue... 4) Goto 1) as he has forgotten what ever he was rambling about before... 73 Scott Klaus von der Heide wrote: > > Hello friends, > > > my comments to the discussion WSPR vs. CW: > > (1) Modes only can be compared at a specified data rate. > Of course, CW is "better" than every thinkable digital > mode if we allow it to be slowed down until something > can be identified on the screen. What really counts is > the duration of a random QSO. > > (2) Modes only can be compared at a specified error rate. > Try to communicate completely unknown messages! The > symbol error rate of CW at it's ultimate snr is > relatively high. Getting confidence in a callsign > needs a low symbol error rate, i.e. a good snr. > > (3) I am working on a digital mode for minimal QSOs. > In simulations with Gaussian noise and Rayleigh fading > it is 1 dB above the Shannon limit. On-off-keying as > used by CW by principle cannot reach that. > > > Wishing the best for 2009, > > 73 de Klaus, DJ5HG > > > >