Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-da02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 1FDA6380000A6; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 08:07:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TBlhc-000507-2M for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:05:56 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TBlhb-0004zy-E0 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:05:55 +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 1TBlhX-0007VB-EQ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:05:54 +0100 X-KULeuven-Envelope-From: rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be X-KULeuven-Scanned: Found to be clean X-KULeuven-ID: AD8C312808A.AECF3 X-KULeuven-Information: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Received: from icts-p-smtps-2.cc.kuleuven.be (icts-p-smtps-2e.kulnet.kuleuven.be [134.58.240.34]) by cavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD8C312808A for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:05:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ICTS-S-HUB1.luna.kuleuven.be (icts-s-hub1.luna.kuleuven.be [10.112.9.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by icts-p-smtps-2.cc.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A47620049 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:05:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be ([fe80::312b:f3bc:9c4:4ebb]) by ICTS-S-HUB1.luna.kuleuven.be ([fe80::f5f7:d8cc:bee0:28d3%26]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.002; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:05:43 +0200 X-Kuleuven: This mail passed the K.U.Leuven mailcluster From: Rik Strobbe To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" Thread-Topic: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? Thread-Index: AQHNj6o0yoiXCg4X8kCcbvNY+GMqEJeFSHSAgAD6UvT///HxAIAAY4nT Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:05:42 +0000 Message-ID: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB22E5E@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be> References: <504E733E.5000208@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>,<8CF5E5BCA46639D-8FC-4829A@webmail-d050.sysops.aol.com> <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB22D26@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be>,<82bc7bcd97ea679e8be267e8e2add69c@dl1dbc.net> In-Reply-To: <82bc7bcd97ea679e8be267e8e2add69c@dl1dbc.net> 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: Hello Sabine, as mentioned in the report the test were done off-air, by adding equal amounts of pure white noise to WSPR / Opera signals of identical amplitude. So no QRM/QRN or QSB involved. Maybe I will do these tests over with QRN and/or QSB added (if there is some interest and if time permits). In these tests WSPR performed 7dB better than Opera2. 3dB can be explained by the fact that WSPR is a 100% duty cycle mode while for Opera it is only 50% (or said otherwise: WSPR = FM and Opera = AM). The remaining 4dB could be due to different coding /decoding algoritms. WSPR coding and protocol is public source (http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/WSPR_2.0_User.pdf), for Opera it is "cracked" by PE1NNZ (http://rn3aus.narod.ru/opera_protocol.pdf). [...] 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 X-Scan-Signature: 052e5a7ab87161a07560b72babff3441 Subject: RE: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL 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: 3039ac1d404a50507aef7045 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hello Sabine, as mentioned in the report the test were done off-air, by adding equal amou= nts of pure white noise to WSPR / Opera signals of identical amplitude. So no QRM/QRN or QSB involved. Maybe I will do these tests over with QRN an= d/or QSB added (if there is some interest and if time permits). In these tests WSPR performed 7dB better than Opera2. 3dB can be explained = by the fact that WSPR is a 100% duty cycle mode while for Opera it is only = 50% (or said otherwise: WSPR =3D FM and Opera =3D AM). The remaining 4dB co= uld be due to different coding /decoding algoritms. WSPR coding and protoco= l is public source (http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/WSPR_2.0_User.= pdf), for Opera it is "cracked" by PE1NNZ (http://rn3aus.narod.ru/opera_pro= tocol.pdf). 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T ________________________________________ Van: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= ] namens Sabine Cremer [sabine@dl1dbc.net] Verzonden: woensdag 12 september 2012 9:46 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Onderwerp: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? Hi Rik, thank you very much for the link to the results of your study. I was told often, that Opera is much more sensitive than WSPR. It was interesting to learn that this might be the result of Opera giving SNR reports 3 dB lower than actually present in the signal path. I think, there are some myths surrounding some digital modes... ;-) 73 Sabine Am 12.09.2012 08:55, schrieb Rik Strobbe: > 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. > > 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 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 [1]/QRSS/ [1]. > > 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 February resulted in a threshold for reliable decoding of -23 dB > for Opera-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 looked at QRSS and DFCW, which at 100 % readability seemed > to provide same or slightly higher throughput than Opera (with some > depence on callsign length and viewing skills). > > Technically it would be straightforward to generate a slow WSPR > transmission, 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 reports would probably show wrong frequencies, > times and SNR. As Roger says, asking Joe Taylor for a modified > version > would be a better permanent solution. > > But whether slow or fast, it' still a digital mode, containing a > blackbox producing 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 straight 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 [2] | Start a > new topic [3] Messages in this topic [4] (1) > Recent Activity: > > * New Members [5] 1 > > Visit Your Group [6] > [7] > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest =95 Unsubscribe =95 Terms of Use [8] > > . > > __,_._,___ > > Links: > ------ > [1] http://on7yd.strobbe.eu/QRSS/ > [2] > > http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/rsgb_lf_group/post;_ylc=3DX3oDMTJxZ2FmaW= xkBF9TAzk3NDkwNTA1BGdycElkAzg1MDgwODk1BGdycHNwSWQDMTY5MDA2MzEwOARtc2dJZAMxM= DI0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM0NzM4NTMwMA--?act=3Dreply&message= Num=3D1024 > [3] > > http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/rsgb_lf_group/post;_ylc=3DX3oDMTJmZzNtaW= o0BF9TAzk3NDkwNTA1BGdycElkAzg1MDgwODk1BGdycHNwSWQDMTY5MDA2MzEwOARzZWMDZnRyB= HNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzNDczODUzMDA- > [4] > > http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/rsgb_lf_group/message/1024;_ylc=3DX3oDMT= M1bTRxaDljBF9TAzk3NDkwNTA1BGdycElkAzg1MDgwODk1BGdycHNwSWQDMTY5MDA2MzEwOARtc= 2dJZAMxMDI0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM0NzM4NTMwMAR0cGNJZAMxMDI0 > [5] > > http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/rsgb_lf_group/members;_ylc=3DX3oDMTJnMnF= sMGJtBF9TAzk3NDkwNTA1BGdycElkAzg1MDgwODk1BGdycHNwSWQDMTY5MDA2MzEwOARzZWMDdn= RsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMzQ3Mzg1MzAw?o=3D6 > [6] > > http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/rsgb_lf_group;_ylc=3DX3oDMTJmMG81aDJ1BF9= TAzk3NDkwNTA1BGdycElkAzg1MDgwODk1BGdycHNwSWQDMTY5MDA2MzEwOARzZWMDdnRsBHNsaw= N2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzNDczODUzMDA- > [7] > > http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=3DX3oDMTJlN2NuYXZpBF9TAzk3NDkwNTAzBGdycE= lkAzg1MDgwODk1BGdycHNwSWQDMTY5MDA2MzEwOARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTM0N= zM4NTMwMA-- > [8] http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms.html=