Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dh06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id B8A6C38000087; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 02:56:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TBgr4-0004Cg-AE for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:55:22 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TBgr3-0004CX-BU for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:55:21 +0100 Received: from rhcavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be ([134.58.240.130] helo=cavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TBgqz-0004T9-Vw for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:55:20 +0100 X-KULeuven-Envelope-From: rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be X-KULeuven-Scanned: Found to be clean X-KULeuven-ID: 8E15F1280B8.A6120 X-KULeuven-Information: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Received: from icts-p-smtps-1.cc.kuleuven.be (icts-p-smtps-1e.kulnet.kuleuven.be [134.58.240.33]) by cavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E15F1280B8; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 08:55:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ICTS-S-HUB3.luna.kuleuven.be (icts-s-hub3.luna.kuleuven.be [10.112.9.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by icts-p-smtps-1.cc.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CA7F4048; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 08:55:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be ([fe80::312b:f3bc:9c4:4ebb]) by ICTS-S-HUB3.luna.kuleuven.be ([fe80::a470:76b3:406d:2b1a%27]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.002; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 08:55:09 +0200 X-Kuleuven: This mail passed the K.U.Leuven mailcluster From: Rik Strobbe To: "rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk" , "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" CC: "edgarjtwining@virginbroadband.com.au" Thread-Topic: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? Thread-Index: AQHNj6o0yoiXCg4X8kCcbvNY+GMqEJeFSHSAgAD6UvQ= Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 06:55:08 +0000 Message-ID: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB22D26@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be> References: <504E733E.5000208@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>,<8CF5E5BCA46639D-8FC-4829A@webmail-d050.sysops.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <8CF5E5BCA46639D-8FC-4829A@webmail-d050.sysops.aol.com> Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US Content-Language: nl-BE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.112.13.13] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-HELO-Warning: Remote host 134.58.240.130 (rhcavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be) used invalid HELO/EHLO cavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be - verification failed X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Marcus, Stefan, All, Some kind of "WSPR8" (8 minutes wspr sequence) could indeed be tested by generating the WSPR8 signal (what is easy as WSPR is fully documented) and accelerate the recorded signal 4 times before feeding it into the WSPR software. But this method requires to reduce the WSPR8 bandwidth (frequency spacing between the tones) also by a factor of 4, from 6Hz to 1.5Hz. [...] Content analysis details: (-1.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [134.58.240.130 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 135a8c1b14bcccf9db1070c2f16443c8 Subject: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB22D26ICTSSMBX5lunaku_" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=HTML_50_60, HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNKNOWN,HTML_MESSAGE 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-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d411a505032331a5b X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none --_000_7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB22D26ICTSSMBX5lunaku_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Marcus, Stefan, All, Some kind of "WSPR8" (8 minutes wspr sequence) could indeed be tested by ge= nerating the WSPR8 signal (what is easy as WSPR is fully documented) and a= ccelerate the recorded signal 4 times before feeding it into the WSPR softw= are. But this method requires to reduce the WSPR8 bandwidth (frequency spac= ing between the tones) also by a factor of 4, from 6Hz to 1.5Hz. If you look at WSPR as an FM signal, the WSPR8 signal created that way will= have the same modulation index as the original WSPR(2) signal, while a WSP= R8 signal at the "old" 6Hz bandwidth would have a 4 times larger modulation= index. And the modulation index affects the SNR. Thus the suggested method= might not fully exploit the possibilities of WSPR8 (at unchanged bandwidth= ). BTW: the results of the SNR performance test are still available at http://= on7yd.strobbe.eu/QRSS/. 73, Rik ON7YD ________________________________ Van: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk [rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk] name= ns Markus Vester [markusvester@aol.com] Verzonden: dinsdag 11 september 2012 19:41 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Cc: edgarjtwining@virginbroadband.com.au; rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk Onderwerp: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? Hi Stefan, LF, if I remember correctly, Rik's careful evaluaton of SNR performance in Febr= uary resulted in a threshold for reliable decoding of -23 dB for Opera-2, v= ersus -29 dB for WSPR. This is carrier power versus noise in 2.5 kHz, Opera= "average power" reports are scaled 4 dB lower. Thus at same available ERP,= WSPR would indeed have a 4x advantage in speed, and be equivalent to Opera= -8. WSPR also transmits slightly more information, ie. locator field and po= wer. Rik also looked at QRSS and DFCW, which at 100 % readability seemed to prov= ide same or slightly higher throughput than Opera (with some depence on cal= lsign length and viewing skills). Technically it would be straightforward to generate a slow WSPR transmissio= n, and also certainly feasible to play back an accelerated recording. You'd= have to get the timing right to fit to the 2-minute slots, and the web rep= orts would probably show wrong frequencies, times and SNR. As Roger says, a= sking Joe Taylor for a modified version would be a better permanent solutio= n. But whether slow or fast, it' still a digital mode, containing a blackbox p= roducing either valid output or nothing at all. If you are after detection = of the weakest possible signals, in my opinion the visual modes or even a s= traight carrier transmission will be the only way to see those "T" and "M" = traces, along with the features of the noise or QRM which we are trying to = overcome. Best 73, Markus (DF6NM) -----Urspr=FCngliche Mitteilung----- Von: Stefan Sch=E4fer An: rsgb_lf_group Cc: Edgar J Twining Verschickt: Di, 11 Sept 2012 1:14 am Betreff: LF: slow WSPR? It's a pity that there is no slow-WSPR, e.g. needing 32 minutes or so. If WSPR (2 minutes FSK) is about as efficient as OP8 ( i heared so), then it should be a real alternative to the slow DX modes on LF but not on MF! There is a software that plays recorded audio files in a faster mode, so that QRSS becomes audible. VE2IQ has reported to me last year about it but i don't remember the name. Would it be possible to make our own slow WSPR by using that software and playing a 32 minute manipulated WSPR at 16x speed, feeding it to the normal WSPR rx software? The slower code could be generated outside the program. Would that be a useful test or do i miss something? 73, Stefan/DK7FC Am 10.09.2012 19:26, schrieb Graham: > May be Mal > > But once again Jim has the answer to this problem ..if you can > find his articles after Google trashed the uk500khz news group , > > I think Jose R predicts a 6 dB gain by changing to PSK from > the Opera on/off keying but that would prevent most of the > LH/MF usage > > G.. > __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a new= topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: * New Members 1 Visit Your Group [Yahoo! Groups] Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest = =95 Unsubscribe =95 Terms of Use . __,_._,___ --_000_7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB22D26ICTSSMBX5lunaku_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Marcus, Stefan, = All,

 

Some kind of "= WSPR8" (8 minutes wspr sequence)=  could indeed be tested by&= nbsp;generating  the WSPR8 signal (what= is easy as WSPR is fully documented) and accelerate the&nbs= p;recorded signal 4 times before feeding it into the WSPR software= . But this method requires = to reduce the WSPR8 bandwidth (frequency spacing between the tones= ) also by a factor of 4, from 6Hz<= a> to 1.5Hz.

If you look = at WSPR as an FM signal, the WSPR8=  signal created that way=  will have the same modulation= index as the original WSPR(2) signal, while a WSPR8 s= ignal at the "old" 6Hz bandwidth would have a 4 times larger = modulation index. And the modulation index affects<= a> the SNR. Thus the suggested method might not=  fully exploit the possibilities of=  WSPR8 (at unchanged bandwidth).

 

BTW: the results of the SNR per= formance test are still available at http://on7yd.strobbe.eu/QRSS/.

 

73, Rik  ON7YD

 

Van: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk [rsgb= _lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk] namens Markus Vester [markusvester@aol.com] Verzonden: dinsdag 11 september 2012 19:41
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Cc: edgarjtwining@virginbroadband.com.au; rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.= co.uk
Onderwerp: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR?

 

Hi Stefan, LF,
 
if I remember correctly, Rik's careful evaluaton of SNR performance in F= ebruary resulted in a threshold for reliable decoding of -23 dB for Op= era-2, versus -29 dB for WSPR. This is carrier power versus noise in 2.5 kHz, Opera "average power"= ; reports are scaled 4 dB lower. Thus at same available ERP, WSPR=  would indeed have a 4x advantage in speed, and be equivalent to Opera= -8. WSPR also transmits slightly more information, ie. locator field and power.
 
Rik also&n= bsp;looked at QRSS and DFCW, which at 100 % readability seemed to prov= ide same or slightly higher throughput than Opera (with some depence o= n callsign length and viewing skills).
 
Technicall= y it would be straightforward to generate a slow WSPR transmissio= n, and also certainly feasible to play back an accelerated record= ing. You'd have to get the timing right to fit to the 2-minute slots, and the web reports would probably show wrong frequencies,= times and SNR. As Roger says, asking Joe Taylor for a modified versio= n would be a better permanent solution.
 
But whethe= r slow or fast, it' still a digital mode, containing a blackbox producing e= ither valid output or nothing at all. If you are after detection of th= e weakest possible signals, in my opinion the visual modes or even a straight carrier transmission will be the only = way to see those "T" and "M" traces, along with&nb= sp;the features of the noise or QRM which we are trying to overcome.
 
Best 73,
Markus (DF= 6NM)
 
 


-----Urspr=FCngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: Stefan Sch=E4fer <Stefan.Schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
An: rsgb_lf_group <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Cc: Edgar J Twining <edgarjtwining@virginbroadband.com.au>
Verschickt: Di, 11 Sept 2012 1:14 am
Betreff: LF: slow WSPR?


It's a pity that there is no slow-WSPR, e=
.g. needing 32 minutes or so.  

If WSPR (2 minutes FSK) is about as efficient as OP8 ( i heared so),  

then it should be a real alternative to the slow DX modes on LF but not  
on MF! 

 

There is a software that plays recorded audio files in a faster mode, so  <=
br>
that QRSS becomes audible. VE2IQ has reported to me last year about it  
but i don't remember the name. 

 

Would it be possible to make our own slow WSPR by using that software  

and playing a 32 minute manipulated WSPR at 16x speed, feeding it to the  <=
br>
normal WSPR rx software? The slower code could be generated outside the  
program. Would that be a useful test or do i miss something? 

 

73, Stefan/DK7FC 

 

Am 10.09.2012 19:26, schrieb Graham: 

> May be  Mal 

> 

> But  once again  Jim has  the  answer to this  problem ..if  you  can =
 

> find his  articles  after  Google  trashed the  uk500khz  news group ,=
 

> 

> I think Jose R  predicts a  6  dB gain  by  changing  to  PSK  from  <=
br>
> the Opera  on/off  keying  but  that  would  prevent  most  of the   <=
br>
> LH/MF usage 

> 

> G.. 

>


__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.
 
__,_._,___
--_000_7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB22D26ICTSSMBX5lunaku_--