Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1378 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2002 13:08:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO warrior.services.quay.plus.net) (212.159.14.227) by excalibur.plus.net with SMTP; 25 Jan 2002 13:08:33 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: (qmail 22910 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2002 13:08:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by warrior.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 25 Jan 2002 13:08:32 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16U619-00084l-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 13:03:43 +0000 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16U615-00084g-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 13:03:39 +0000 Received: from westrelay01.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.99.140.22]) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA60474 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 07:59:46 -0500 Received: from usa.net (ss6.bld.socks.ibm.com [9.14.4.71]) by westrelay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.11.1m3/NCO v5.01) with ESMTP id g0PD2mW54482 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 06:02:48 -0700 Message-ID: <3C515761.812624FC@usa.net> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:02:25 +0100 From: "Alberto di Bene" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: LF: Re: Jason Tests signalling comparison References: <7D653C9C42F5D411A27C00508BF8803DCB997B@pdw-mail-r1.dstl.gov.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Talbot Andrew wrote: > I think Alberto is using a > 2^17 long FFT on an 11025 Hz sampling rate, so each FFT bin occupies > 0.084Hz. Windowing of the FFT data is usually done which widens the > effective bandwidth - a Hamming window gives a factor of 1.85 - so the Rx > bandwidth is now 0.16 Hz. > Correct, only I use a Bartlett window, to reduce the width of the main lobe. The Gibbs phenomenon is of no much annoyance here. > Hope that explains the process of how to compare these modes. All rely on > the same fundamental decoding mechanism, incoherent detection of signal > power in a fixed bandwidth. Now, if instead of power, we operate with known > phase and look for signal voltage we immediately gain another 6dB, but > that's another story. Yes, a version of Jason locked to a GPS could be done, but the problem is, how many have the needed hardware to use it ? Besides non-coherent detection, another factor contributes to reduce the S/N performance : character sync. I don't know when a tone switching occurs or should occur. So I compute the statistical 'mode' of the FFT peaks to detect this event. It is my feeling that an integration done on the signal exactly on the interval where you 'know' that a single tone is to be found, would give much better results. > Suffice to say, G3PLX at 393km distance can get 100% > copy of my 30s BPSK transmissions when I am radiating less than 1W of RF, > equating to probably only 100-200 microwatts ERP In the States, the W4DEX beacon with 1 W (RF power, not ERP) has been received at 1000 km distance, though not 100% error free. This is not to say that m-ary FSK, non-coherently detected, is better than BPSK (it isn't), but the diagrams on the Tom McDermott's book "Wireless Digital Communications: Design and Theory" ISBN: 0-9644707-2-1 giving the BER at very low S/N ratios look promising. 73 Alberto I2PHD