Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20040112162906.037a6718@u0019445.kuleuven.be>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:35:29 +0100
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "Rik Strobbe" <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be>
In-reply-to: <001301c3d91c$76072fc0$09dc9384@jka>
References: <007a01c3d870$20dd0bc0$0500a8c0@charter.net> <304614133.20040112111754@dx.ru> <002801c3d90b$b41134c0$0500a8c0@charter.net> <004401c3d914$cdb10690$1f00a8c0@dellboy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: Re: Re: First WOLF QSO!
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Sender: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Hello John, Dave,

I believe that it might be difficult to compare QRSS and WOLF as their 
effectivity also depends on propagation conditions.

As WOLF is repeating the message over and over at a rather high speed it 
can take advantage of short propagation peaks, this is not the case with 
QRSS where the message is sent a single time at a very slow speed.
At the other hand QRSS might be better when propagation is rather stable 
but very weak (or for surface wave propagation).

73, Rik  ON7YD

At 09:57 12/01/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Dave,
>
>We did some tests a couple of years ago involving two similar stations near
>each other that were about 1800 km from me. One ran QRSS60, the other WOLF.
>I think we did the tests for about a week, and found similar results.
>Neither had a clear advantage over that period. The conclusion was that the
>effectiveness of WOLF was about the same as QRSS60.
>
>While our QSO of yesterday did not fully exercise WOLF's capability, do
>realize that we were receiving 15 characters in a 20 minute period. QRSS60
>can't do that!
>
>As originally conceived by Stewart Nelson, the "reference channel" could be
>used to exchange signal report information. Neither that nor real-time
>decoding has been realized, however. It does remain an interesting mode,
>with a number of limitations as listed in Alan Melia's message of this
>morning. For U.S. Lowfers, bandwidth is not an issue, and the potential for
>anything but very local interference is limited.
>
>I do believe that gps-locked slower BPSK has more potential at LF, and am
>slowly working on getting set up for that. Underline the word "slowly,"
>though!
>
>John Andrews, W1TAG