Message-ID: <4C51FA69.1030202@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:02:17 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= <schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <CD23FAD2-C25C-4491-B7A6-66370074F9DB@hurontel.on.ca> <AANLkTi=-0nwKg3SiO683YX4Wo5oq5aQ74aE5pSbbyv02@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=-0nwKg3SiO683YX4Wo5oq5aQ74aE5pSbbyv02@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: LF: Digital modes comparison
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------020602080008030006080302"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


--------------020602080008030006080302
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Andy, LF,

Which digital mode could be most suited for a band where one has just an 
antenna bandwidth of some Hz? You know what i mean... And what could be 
the "gain" compared to DFCW-600. Gain means here, how far(er) could it 
be detected, not how much more information can i transmit within the 
same time.

73, Stefan/DK7FC

PS: I see that e.g. JT65 needs abt 200 Hz, so this NOT suited!


Am 29.07.2010 23:07, schrieb Andy Talbot:
> It would be very interesting to see those figures normalised to a 
> constant data rate / bandwidth.  For example, PSK31 shown at -10dB is 
> identical to PKK63 at -7dB - well it would be, its the same 
> modulation, just faster.   Ie plot Bits/second/Hz vs. Eb/No, then 
> stick the Shannon limit on the graph and see which lie nearest.
> The fact that JT65 is at the top is probably because it sits at around 
> 0.27 chars / second, or something like 1.2 B/s.  Although even after 
> normalisation, it would no doubt still score well up.
>
> Andy
> www.g4jnt.com <http://www.g4jnt.com>
>
>
> On 29 July 2010 21:48, John Bruce McCreath <weazle@hurontel.on.ca 
> <mailto:weazle@hurontel.on.ca>> wrote:
>
>     Hello LFers,
>
>     I found this while web browsing....interesting reading and Mal's
>     favourite mode isn't top dog.
>
>     http://kb2hsh.blogspot.com/2010/05/capabilities-of-weak-signal-digital.html
>
>     I was looking for sites having info about digital modes on 1,800
>     kHz. and lower frequencies.
>
>     73, J.B., VE3EAR
>
>     LowFER Beacon "EAR"
>     188.830 kHz. QRSS30
>     EN93dr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--------------020602080008030006080302
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"   http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Andy, LF,<br>
<br>
Which digital mode could be most suited for a band where one has just
an antenna bandwidth of some Hz? You know what i mean... And what could
be the "gain" compared to DFCW-600. Gain means here, how far(er) could
it be detected, not how much more information can i transmit within the
same time.<br>
<br>
73, Stefan/DK7FC<br>
<br>
PS: I see that e.g. JT65 needs abt 200 Hz, so this NOT suited!<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 29.07.2010 23:07, schrieb Andy Talbot:
<blockquote   cite="mid:AANLkTi=-0nwKg3SiO683YX4Wo5oq5aQ74aE5pSbbyv02@mail.gmail.com"   type="cite">
  <div>It would be very interesting to see those figures normalised to
a constant data rate / bandwidth.&nbsp; For example, PSK31 shown at -10dB is
identical to PKK63 at -7dB - well it would be, its the same modulation,
just faster.&nbsp;&nbsp; Ie plot Bits/second/Hz vs. Eb/No, then stick the Shannon
limit on the graph and see which lie nearest.</div>
  <div>&nbsp;</div>
  <div>The fact that JT65 is at the top is probably because it sits at
around 0.27 chars / second, or something like 1.2 B/s.&nbsp; Although even
after normalisation, it would no doubt still score&nbsp;well up.</div>
  <div>&nbsp;</div>
  <div><br clear="all">
Andy<br>
  <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.g4jnt.com">www.g4jnt.com</a><br>
  <br>
  <br>
  </div>
  <div class="gmail_quote">On 29 July 2010 21:48, John Bruce McCreath <span   dir="ltr">&lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"   href="mailto:weazle@hurontel.on.ca">weazle@hurontel.on.ca</a>&gt;</span>
wrote:<br>
  <blockquote   style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"   class="gmail_quote">Hello LFers,<br>
    <br>
I found this while web browsing....interesting reading and Mal's
favourite mode isn't top dog.<br>
    <br>
    <a moz-do-not-send="true"   href="http://kb2hsh.blogspot.com/2010/05/capabilities-of-weak-signal-digital.html"   target="_blank">http://kb2hsh.blogspot.com/2010/05/capabilities-of-weak-signal-digital.html</a><br>
    <br>
I was looking for sites having info about digital modes on 1,800 kHz.
and lower frequencies.<br>
    <br>
73, J.B., VE3EAR<br>
    <br>
LowFER Beacon "EAR"<br>
188.830 kHz. QRSS30<br>
EN93dr<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
  </blockquote>
  </div>
  <br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

--------------020602080008030006080302--