Return-Path: Received: from rly-me02.mx.aol.com (rly-me02.mail.aol.com [172.20.83.35]) by air-me05.mail.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILINME054-9a04956b22c15f; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 17:54:48 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-me02.mx.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINME024-9a04956b22c15f; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 17:54:38 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1LGi2c-0006Dt-MK for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 22:53:54 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1LGi2c-0006Dk-8r for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 22:53:54 +0000 Received: from ndisco46.misc.net ([195.64.106.46]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1LGi2X-0008MU-1D for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 22:53:54 +0000 Received: from p5b260762.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([91.38.7.98] helo=[192.168.178.20]) by ndisco46.misc.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1LGi2P-0002c4-W3 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 23:53:42 +0100 From: "Klaus von der Heide" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 23:53:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <4956BFEE.19110.2EE6D21@v.d.heide.on-line.de> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41, DE v4.41 R1) Content-description: Mail message body X-Karma: 0: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: LF: Re: WSPR and CW Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 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-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 Hello friends, my comments to the discussion WSPR vs. CW: (1) Modes only can be compared at a specified data rate. Of course, CW is "better" than every thinkable digital mode if we allow it to be slowed down until something can be identified on the screen. What really counts is the duration of a random QSO. (2) Modes only can be compared at a specified error rate. Try to communicate completely unknown messages! The symbol error rate of CW at it's ultimate snr is relatively high. Getting confidence in a callsign needs a low symbol error rate, i.e. a good snr. (3) I am working on a digital mode for minimal QSOs. In simulations with Gaussian noise and Rayleigh fading it is 1 dB above the Shannon limit. On-off-keying as used by CW by principle cannot reach that. Wishing the best for 2009, 73 de Klaus, DJ5HG