Message-ID: <003e01c0b7ba$708665b0$0a00a8c0@ThreeLakes.ca>
From: "Larry Kayser" <kayser@sympatico.ca>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <3.0.1.16.20010328085558.2f57efaa@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: Re: LF: RE: WOLF (BPSK) modulation continuous phase modulation.
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:04:11 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Greetings All:

From: "Rik Strobbe"

> That is 100% correct, my aim is to find a trade-off between simplicity and
> bandwidth. This is standard practice for any CW transmitter where
> key-clicks are surpressed to an acceptable level.

Oh my, the "acceptable level" issue around hard keying again.  I thought
this discussion was only undertaken in the high speed CW community - at 50
WPM on CW I use hard keying, very hard keying, as an aid to making the CW
copyable as the speed increases.  Some operators in the CW community find
the hard keying hard to take, but I also find the "bell" like keying of some
signals so very objectionable - to each his own.

The issue of BPSK keying should in my opinion focus around determining the
losses in signal recovery when the phase reversal is "softened".  If the
loss is measurable in the receive system performance then it should not be
done.  Pushing the envelope of LF propagation with BPSK must not be degraded
by "softening" the keying, if it does in a measurable way, say .1 dB or more
then I for one just wont use such a system here at all.

This position might sound a tad hard for some of you on this reflector but I
have only to look at the Loran signal garbage to tell me what good
engineering practice allows.  We need do nothing better than that service is
achieving.

Larry
VA3LK