Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1169; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK autolearn=no version=3.1.3 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id t0AMduTo025580 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 23:39:57 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1YA4b1-0004cx-EP for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:33:27 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1YA4b1-0004co-3k for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:33:27 +0000 Received: from rgout01.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk ([65.20.0.178]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1YA4ay-00030g-Ri for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:33:25 +0000 X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A090203.54B1A8B3.005E,ss=1,re=0.001,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0 X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=38/50,refid=2.7.2:2014.12.31.164221:17:38.936,ip=81.151.237.138,rules=__HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, MSGID_32HEX_LC, INVALID_MSGID_NO_FQDN, __MSGID_32HEX, __HAS_FROM, __PHISH_FROM2, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL_FROM, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __TO_NO_NAME, __REFERENCES, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __HAS_X_PRIORITY, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI, __HAS_X_MAILER, USER_AGENT_OE, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __ANY_URI, __URI_NO_PATH, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE, __FORWARDED_MSG, BODY_SIZE_1700_1799, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, __URI_NS, SXL_IP_DYNAMIC[138.237.151.81.fur], HTML_00_01, HTML_00_10, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __PHISH_FROM, __OUTLOOK_MUA, __PHISH_SPEAR_STRUCTURE_1, RDNS_SUSP, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS, REFERENCES X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown Received: from gnat (81.151.237.138) by rgout01.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk (8.6.122.06) (authenticated as alan.melia@btinternet.com) id 5496BF430220F36F for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:33:23 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=btcpcloud; t=1420929204; bh=o0P2LEoJVMLtiVDxJquGpMba81ZTbOFG+Wd0eVkbG+o=; h=Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:X-Mailer; b=R295T18bVZ6LWOnrgR2RGs6yLHhz9vxAoneIxfyM7kg8V45twl0GdIpxhHOoQ1v4Ht4FzeI/6Uvq0R/s6IfAuLtlerAZvMNSBEOeaeqQO1OjGNkR9XV3gvwBGWcGQ7EQ0B5Gr/NX+0z5jMtTSKWucCCZXtB+lt01ivicmYQJElU= Message-ID: From: "Alan Melia" To: References: <20150108220755.GA20377@cs.utwente.nl> <54AF0F8C.8030106@virginbroadband.com.au> <20150110211701.GN29958@cs.utwente.nl> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:13:20 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Scan-Signature: 66d07794ca19cd68f7d6cc289cd4ac18 Subject: Re: LF: Eb/N0 values for amateur modes Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 10.1.3.10 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1940 Hi Pieter, Dave G3YXM and I did some quick and dirty estimations of QRSS about 10 years ago on 136kHz I cant remember whether we did DFCW where the main advantage is that it is faster, but the decode threshold is about the same as QRSS It is a little subjective but the results seemed reasonably what we might suspect. They may be on his web-site still www.wireless.org I think the we only considered fully reading the ID and Dave reduced power until it was not possible to decode. The results were in line with the FFT resolution used, but we have no measured values. I believe someone in the States also did some tests, John W1TAG could probably help there. They may be on the LWCA web-site. Best Wishes Alan G3NYK G3NYK ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pieter-Tjerk de Boer" To: Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 9:17 PM Subject: Re: LF: Eb/N0 values for amateur modes > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 10:15:24AM +1100, edgar wrote: > >> In your email, in which mode grouping would DFCW 180 fit? > > Not in any, really. I'm not aware of any (published) experiments having > been done to establish decoding thresholds for it, which I could use > to put it in the table. > > Compared to regular CW transmitted at the same (peak) power, DFCW has > about 3 dB more average power because the transmitter is on continuously, > so just because of that, it should give better performance at the same > _peak_ power level. However, whether the performance difference is more > or less than 3 dB, and thus whether it is better or worse than CW at the > same _average_ power (as normally used for Eb/N0 calculation), is harder > to predict. > > Regards, > Pieter-Tjerk, PA3FWM > >