Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mp04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 488D8380000D3; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:40:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TBpyI-0007QF-Vb for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:39:26 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TBpyI-0007Q6-5g for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:39:26 +0100 Received: from imr-ma05.mx.aol.com ([64.12.100.31]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TBpyF-0003Y0-AW for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:39:25 +0100 Received: from mtaomg-db04.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-db04.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.202]) by imr-ma05.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q8CGd2uB029944; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:39:02 -0400 Received: from core-msd004c.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-msd004.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.234.13]) by mtaomg-db04.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 72B21E000090; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:39:01 -0400 (EDT) References: <66C690FA65054015B54D3DC3A6699556@AGB> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-Reply-To: <66C690FA65054015B54D3DC3A6699556@AGB> X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI Received: from 194.138.39.59 by webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com (205.188.181.22) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:39:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Markus Vester X-MB-Message-Type: User X-Mailer: Webmail 36962-BASIC Cc: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk Message-Id: <8CF5F1C3F556E0D-1A4C-500CE@webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [194.138.39.59] Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:39:01 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20110426; t=1347467942; bh=xR8TcnZqpF5hCFpfvRUOeyJgXpCyhJjF3s20vhW+2C0=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=blUEN6DyHZl7zKOCBCYR4VsJJWEmrjDySAZAG1rBOKLcHYELx6vBwNRWBLjnJOQMk XzT9pH47O4FrqYmfyNYWM7I2BZ7+dRcRqmTUatMBnLKPbmMFk5/xvrNW/e1Nsr2MHF SE4FS3bLQmv7OOuKGBvdJ74OZ+U6tafk6xxCwu5A= X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:324935040:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) 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 Graham, LF,  wow such a flood of incoming mails...  > Well yes Joe (K) is right, BPSK is better, but needs a linear system to transmit .... Joe (EA) has stated, he could extract another 6 dB if the modulation system was changed ......  BPSK vs. ASK? Unfiltered PSK _can_ be sent by a nonlinear transmitter, it's only very unfriendly to others due to the spectral sidebands from the sharp transitions. But so is unshaped ASK!  In simple words, ASK steps from 1 to 0 wheras BPSK transitions go from +1 to -1. So with BPSK you get twice the sensitivity, along with twice the keyclicks. If you compare ASK at a given peak power to BPSK sent at -6 dB, you end up at same sensitivity and same clicks. Only average power for PSK would be half (25% instead of 50%).  Phase-continuous FSK as used in WSPR is much more gentle in that respect. There are no steps in the waveform, thus the click spectrum falls off much more rapidly.  > WLOF is already coded and makes use of multi pass to gain s/n, but is psk and needs a liner system ...and is not a one-pass decode system , when the s/n is low .but at -41 dB, by what ever scale, OP32 is well into the noise in single pass  The advantage of such a "multipass" system is that it can be adaptive to SNR, ie. a strong signal decodes fast, and only for a weak one you have to wait longer.  > We didn't set out to produce a low level beacon mode, it was supposed to be a replacement for the CW key ..  Apparently Opera is functioning as a beaconing system, and nothing else. You basically transmit one information ("I'm there"), and you get a reply by the internet ("I see you"). Am I missing something here?  Sooner or later, someone here will surely ask that question: On the other hand, if you are aiming for two way communication, and there is no SNR advantage, then why would you want to replace the Morse key in the first place? [...] Content analysis details: (-0.4 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [64.12.100.31 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (markusvester[at]aol.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 882bdeb3d60c37e569eb1f790f5c4a0f Subject: Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CF5F1C3F6154F2_1A4C_123BB7_webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com" 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=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-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mtain-mp04.r1000.mx.aol.com ; domain : mx.aol.com DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039ac1dc1485050baef3a18 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CF5F1C3F6154F2_1A4C_123BB7_webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Graham, LF, =C2=A0 wow such a flood of incoming mails... =C2=A0 > Well yes Joe (K) is right, BPSK is better, but needs a linear system t= o transmit .... Joe (EA) has stated, he could extract another 6 dB if the m= odulation system was changed ...... =C2=A0 BPSK vs. ASK? Unfiltered PSK _can_ be sent by a nonlinear transmitter, it's= only very unfriendly to others due to the spectral sidebands from the shar= p transitions. But so is unshaped ASK!=20 =C2=A0 In simple words, ASK steps from 1 to 0 wheras BPSK transitions go from +1 t= o -1. So with BPSK you get twice the sensitivity, along with twice the keyc= licks. If you compare ASK at a given peak power to BPSK sent at -6 dB, you = end up at same sensitivity and same clicks. Only average power for PSK woul= d be half (25% instead of 50%). =C2=A0 Phase-continuous FSK as used in WSPR is much more gentle in that respect. T= here are no steps in the waveform, thus the click spectrum falls off much m= ore rapidly. =C2=A0 > WLOF is already coded and makes use of multi pass to gain s/n, but is = psk and needs a liner system ...and is not a one-pass decode system , when = the s/n is low .but at -41 dB, by what ever scale, OP32 is well into the no= ise in single pass =C2=A0 The advantage of such a "multipass" system is that it can be adaptive to SN= R, ie. a strong signal decodes fast, and only for a weak one you have to wa= it longer. =C2=A0 > We didn't set out to produce a low level beacon mode, it was supposed = to be a replacement for the CW key ..=20 =C2=A0 Apparently Opera is functioning as a beaconing system, and nothing else. Yo= u basically transmit one information ("I'm there"), and you get a reply by = the internet ("I see you"). Am I missing something here?=20 =C2=A0 Sooner or later, someone here will surely ask that question: On the other h= and, if you are aiming for two way communication, and there is no SNR advan= tage, then why would you want to replace the Morse key in the first place?= =20 > The Op structure allows for up to 50% loss of signal randomly along th= e time line, ie first 50%, last 50% or randomly distributed=20 =C2=A0 Yes with Opera's distributed and redundant coding you can chop off half of = the signal time. WSPR can do the very same stunt. Both will need more SNR d= uring the remaining half, at least 3 dB, probably a bit more. Even DFCW cou= ld do it if you had sent two repetitions at double speed ;-)=20 =C2=A0 > and over a real path , the Op system is able to make use of deep varia= tions in fading and is immure to phase and Doppler distortion. =C2=A0 Yes of course, on the air there are other factors than "AWGN" white noise. = Spherics and impulsive QRM have to be dealt by appropriate (preferably wide= -band) noise blanking strategies. Fading and Doppler (which is only milliHz= on LF) may have to be dealt with. But it remains to be proven that under t= hese conditions Op is so much superior that it can make up for the 6 dB sho= rtfall under lab conditions.=C2=A0=20 =C2=A0 > But, 'the eating of the pudding is in the proof of the making'? Stefan= , last night reaching ua0aet over land, with 7 dB left in the system, takin= g some big bites out of the distance records on 136 =C2=A0 Yes, a very nice result! I can state without envy that Stefan has a good si= gnal, and it is going further than others. But does that really make a poin= t for Opera, versus any other mode?=20 =C2=A0 Graham, I'm in no way against Opera mode per se. But I have to say that I d= islike the bragging.=20 =C2=A0 > The best thing about the Op system is 'The number of reason's it canno= t work' :) =C2=A0 Hey, that's what all those perpetuum mobile inventors keep claiming ;-) Best 73, Markus (DF6NM) =C2=A0=20 Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR?=20 Von: Graham <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk>=20 Datum: Mi, 12 Sept 2012 12:24 pm=20 =C2=A0 Re: LF: Fwd: Re: Ideas for a slower WSPR for the 137 khz band Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:08 PM =C2=A0 Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR?=20 Datum: Mi, 12 Sept 2012 4:16 pm=20 =C2=A0 Re: LF: Fw: LOST TRACK=20 Datum: Mi, 12 Sept 2012 5:18 pm=20 ... -----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mitteilung-----=20 Von: Graham <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk> An: rsgb_lf_group <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org> Verschickt: Mi, 12 Sept 2012 4:16 pm Betreff: Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR? Well its mostly a silly argument as the systems are totally differen= t =20 , in terms of data processing and the operation of the decoder and th= e =20 technical level of the equipment needed to tx/rx the mode=20 =20 We didn't set out to produce a low level beacon mode , it was supposed = =20 to be a replacement for the CW key .. the longer times where as a =20 result of studying the various EU/VK qrsss plots and reasoning that= =20 over 50% of the 32 min cycle could be above the decode level ... the = =20 rest (will be) history :)=20 =20 DSP and associated 'Numeric Processing' facts and fictions are very = =20 difficult to separate , not helped by the ongoing pie fight out to =20 'our' west , however... so far so good !=20 =20 The best thing about the Op system is 'The number of reason's it =20 cannot work' :)=20 =20 G..=20 =20 ----------MB_8CF5F1C3F6154F2_1A4C_123BB7_webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Hi Graham,= LF,
 
wow such a flood of incoming mails...
 
> Well yes Joe (K) is right, BPSK is better, but needs a linear sys= tem to transmit .... Joe (EA) has stated, he could extract another 6 dB if = the modulation system was changed ......
 
BPSK vs. ASK? Unfiltered PSK _can_ be sent by a nonlinear transmitter,= it's only very unfriendly to others due to the spectral sidebands from the= sharp transitions. But so is unshaped ASK!
 
In simple words, ASK steps from 1 to 0 wheras BPSK transitions go from= +1 to -1. So with BPSK you get twice the sensitivity, along with twice the= keyclicks. If you compare ASK at a given peak power to BPSK sent at -6 dB,= you end up at same sensitivity and same clicks. Only average power for PSK= would be half (25% instead of 50%).
 
Phase-continuous FSK as used in WSPR is much more gentle in that respe= ct. There are no steps in the waveform, thus the click spectrum falls off m= uch more rapidly.
 
> WLOF is already coded and makes use of multi pass to gain s/n, bu= t is psk and needs a liner system ...and is not a one-pass decode system , = when the s/n is low .but at -41 dB, by what ever scale, OP32 is well into t= he noise in single pass
 
The advantage of such a "multipass" system is that it can be adaptive = to SNR, ie. a strong signal decodes fast, and only for a weak one you have = to wait longer.
 
> We didn't set out to produce a low level beacon mode, it was supp= osed to be a replacement for the CW key ..
 
Apparently Opera is functioning as a beaconing system, and nothing els= e. You basically transmit one information ("I'm there"), and you get a repl= y by the internet ("I see you"). Am I missing something here?
 
Sooner or later, someone here will surely ask that question: On the ot= her hand, if you are aiming for two way communication, and there is no SNR = advantage, then why would you want to replace the Morse key in the first pl= ace?
> The Op structure allows for up to 50% loss of signal randomly alo= ng the time line, ie first 50%, last 50% or randomly distributed
 
Yes with Opera's distributed and redundant coding you can chop off hal= f of the signal time. WSPR can do the very same stunt. Both will need more = SNR during the remaining half, at least 3 dB, probably a bit more. Even DFC= W could do it if you had sent two repetitions at double speed ;-)
 
> and over a real path , the Op system is able to make use of deep = variations in fading and is immure to phase and Doppler distortion.
 
Yes of course, on the air there are other factors than "AWGN" white no= ise. Spherics and impulsive QRM have to be dealt by appropriate (preferably= wide-band) noise blanking strategies. Fading and Doppler (which is only mi= lliHz on LF) may have to be dealt with. But it remains to be proven that un= der these conditions Op is so much superior that it can make up for the 6 d= B shortfall under lab conditions. 
 
> But, 'the eating of the pudding is in the proof of the making'? S= tefan, last night reaching ua0aet over land, with 7 dB left in the system, = taking some big bites out of the distance records on 136
 
Yes, a very nice result! I can state without envy that Stefan has a go= od signal, and it is going further than others. But does that really make a= point for Opera, versus any other mode?
 
Graham, I'm in no way against Opera mode per se. But I have to say tha= t I dislike the bragging.
 
> The best thing about the Op system is 'The number of reason's it = cannot work' :)
 
Hey, that's what all those perpetuum mobile inventors keep claiming ;-= )

Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)

 
Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR?
Von: Graham <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsne= t.co.uk>
Datum: Mi, 12 Sept 2012 12:24 pm
 
Re: LF: Fwd: Re: Ideas for a slower WSPR for the 137 khz band
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:08 PM
 
Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR?
Datum: Mi, 12 Sept 2012 4:16 pm
 
Re: LF: Fw: LOST TRACK
Datum: Mi, 12 Sept 2012 5:18 pm
...
-----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: Graham <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk>
An: rsgb_lf_group <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Verschickt: Mi, 12 Sept 2012 4:16 pm
Betreff: Re: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: slow WSPR?

Well  its mostly a silly  argument  as  t=
he  systems  are totally  different  

, in terms of  data  processing  and the  operation of the  decoder  and th=
e  

technical  level  of the  equipment needed to tx/rx  the mode 

 

We didn't  set out to produce a  low level  beacon  mode , it was supposed =
 

to  be a replacement  for the  CW key ..  the longer times  where as  a  
result of studying the  various    EU/VK  qrsss  plots  and  reasoning that=
  

over 50% of the  32  min cycle could  be  above the  decode level ... the  =


rest  (will be) history :) 

 

DSP and  associated  'Numeric Processing'   facts and  fictions  are  very =
 

difficult to separate  , not  helped by the  ongoing  pie fight  out to  
'our'  west , however... so far  so good ! 

 

The  best  thing  about the  Op system is  'The  number of reason's  it  
cannot  work'  :) 

 

G..

----------MB_8CF5F1C3F6154F2_1A4C_123BB7_webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com--