Message-ID: <3AF0E14F.F98BD29@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 00:40:47 -0400
From: "John Currie" <john.currie@ns.sympatico.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: Re:  more Wolf tests
References: <3AEFD6C6.26493.1590F2@localhost> <3AEFEEDB.6845.73A06A@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Hi Mike I inadvertantly deleted your last comments on WOLF could you please resend
     73 de John VE1ZJ

Mike Dennison wrote:

> ON7YD wrote:
> > While WOLF is in an 'experimental stage' the carrier can be usefull for
> > tuning purposes. But if you can detect a 2 or 3 second carrier, a DFCW QSO
> > won't take more time than a WOLF QSO. So why make a simple thing difficult ?
> > But wasn't it the (cl)aim that WOLF would be superior to primitive modes
> > such as QRSS and DFCW ? If I remember well WOLF was given a 10dB credit
> > over QRSS at 10 sec./dot, so assuming you want to copy a WOLF signal that
> > is just 'at the edge' a 100 sec. carrier would be needed to make it visible with
> > spectrogram-like software.
>
> Hmmm. I was originally suspicious of that figure, and have seen nothing yet
> that supports it. I am not aware of any amateur radio WOLF reception so far
> that would not have been viable using QRSS, but the technique is at an early
> stage.
>
> I am still keen on WOLF on the promise that it can produce results from a
> relatively short peak in conditions, whilst QRSS/DFCW needs a longer period
> of enhancement. The really big peaks - the ones that would allow you, for
> instance, to get through - last only a few minutes. Even if it is no better than 3s
> dot DFCW, it may be an improvement in terms of time. This time factor was
> identified this winter as the greatest barrier to regular two-way transcontinental
> QSOs.
>
> Also, I am not suggesting that the carrier should provide anything readable,
> merely showing that a signal is there. This could be well down on an 'M'
> QRS/DFCW transmission.
>
> I remain skeptical but fascinated.
>
> Mike, G3XDV (IO91VT)
> http://www.lf.thersgb.net