Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15934 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2005 13:41:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-spamcore01.plus.net) (192.168.71.1) by ptb-mailstore03.plus.net with SMTP; 12 Apr 2005 13:41:51 -0000 Received: from mailnull by ptb-spamcore01.plus.net with spamcore-l-b (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1DLLgF-000IUb-PJ for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:43:51 +0100 Received: from [192.168.67.3] (helo=ptb-mxcore03.plus.net) by ptb-spamcore01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1DLLgF-000IUL-Bx for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:43:51 +0100 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore03.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1DLLhR-0002aB-GF for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:45:05 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1DLLdc-0002P3-L9 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:41:08 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.30] (helo=relay.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1DLLdc-0002Ou-A4 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:41:08 +0100 Received: from thumbler.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be ([134.58.240.45]) by relay.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DLLdb-0002ol-0Q for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:41:08 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thumbler.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D6A137A63 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:41:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from octavianus.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (octavianus.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.240.71]) by thumbler.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id C729D137A5B for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:41:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dell-rik.fys.kuleuven.ac.be (pc-10-33-165-177.fys.kuleuven.ac.be [10.33.165.177]) by octavianus.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E75AED83 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:41:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20050412154826.02288930@u0019445.kuleuven.be> X-Sender: u0019445@u0019445.kuleuven.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:54:48 +0200 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org From: Rik Strobbe In-Reply-To: <425BCF3E.11650.17B7688@localhost> References: <000701c53f43$2e3dd4d0$5f4136d2@mcalevey> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: by KULeuven Antivirus Cluster X-SPF-Result: relay.thorcom.net: 134.58.240.45 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of fys.kuleuven.ac.be X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=failed,none Subject: Re: LF: G3AQC in ZL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet SpamCORE (v3.00) Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Mike, "TX/RX synchronisation" would reduce the time occupied by FFT by 100 or more (from several FFT/sec to 1 FFT/min). The "calculation power" that becomes available could be used to improve SNR. But How ? Here we need some smart guys. I think you are even a bit pessimistic about the synchronisation error. It can be reduced to 1/10 of a second or even better, if the PC clock is locked to a GPS source, DCF or similar. 73, Rik ON7YD >Another technique waiting to be developed is pseudo-synchronous >transmit and receive. By that I mean something between QRSS (which is >unsynchronised) and proper synchronisation using complex techniques >that have so far failed to become popular. The fact that Markus could >gain information from comparing the Tx and Rx timing proves this. >With QRSS60 or 120, the synchronisation error could be of the order >of a few seconds! > >There are probably some 6 - 10 decibels out there just waiting to be >picked up! > >Mike, G3XDV >==========