Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dl06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id CC7B838000083; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 16:11:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TFW2S-0003IZ-Ph for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 21:10:56 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TFW2Q-0003IQ-Qk for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 21:10:54 +0100 Received: from mail-bk0-f43.google.com ([209.85.214.43]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TFW2O-0008Da-6t for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 21:10:53 +0100 Received: by bkty15 with SMTP id y15so3266223bkt.16 for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:10:51 -0700 (PDT) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=gmail.com Result=Good and Known Domain DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=rrTjoarT/DzaBRcF7bTy2cOO9xjkHgwDnvg6Mf21ik0=; b=lcaHR7xTvceKajh+NbfvmBjILqSVGWEMAPCCDv7lf/cgdlk2gXqez846vEs1EwgpVh rQnRUxhiPAqixqHlXQ887UzFApHdk8ENrHD+jV4PmKQ9W5ewi9KUgRFeCFi6NEQPYMIE bDFv8coaQqlESMVM0ZE7sT59pnRgmG8cJsnBjmEL5xSFVja1GLGbyU5Tua1i/ChzBwxH 5tqO6MU3oPlUb8duXiPJyRwoRmxSMNcrXK+zMuMavYMTF2ax9u0lXAvl28CUSa6GZQFg pHf9fdPwYGsAiKurH4u6FrNhfI52DVRH4kYQThntJf/Sy2mh3+QPBcao/71Ipf8Z2txX s4JQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.5.204 with SMTP id 12mr550101bkw.89.1348344650752; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.170.136 with HTTP; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:10:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <505E0C74.9040704@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> References: <505E0C74.9040704@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 21:10:50 +0100 Message-ID: From: Roger Lapthorn To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org, rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk Cc: Joe Taylor X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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 Stefan, Thank you for forwarding the message from Joe K1JT. This is most encouraging: JT8-30 at ~12dB better than WSPR2 would be so useful on LF/MF. I hope Joe can fit this exciting development around his busy work schedule. His superb weak signal software is such an asset to the amateur community. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [209.85.214.43 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (rogerlapthorn[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 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: 72f3686d3f5e154c987315e88c667a5f Subject: Re: LF: JT-8 ! Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151758b1f4f164d604ca4ff3d1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TAG_EXISTS_TBODY 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-dl06.r1000.mx.aol.com ; domain : gmail.com DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d4ad4505e1b855c86 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none --00151758b1f4f164d604ca4ff3d1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Stefan, Thank you for forwarding the message from Joe K1JT. This is most encouraging: JT8-30 at ~12dB better than WSPR2 would be so useful on LF/MF. I hope Joe can fit this exciting development around his busy work schedule. His superb weak signal software is such an asset to the amateur community. 73s Roger G3XBM On 22 September 2012 20:07, Stefan Sch=E4fer < Stefan.Schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote: > ** > FYI, message from Joe/K1JT (permission to forward it to the group). > > 73, Stefan/DK7FC > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: Fwd: LF: Experimental > software for WSPR-8 and -32 Datum: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 14:11:10 -0400 Von:= Joe > Taylor > An: Stefan Sch=E4fer *[...]* > > I had some free time recently to think further about a more sensitive > mode for MF and LF use. Here is a very brief and preliminary planning > statement, including simulation results for the decoding thresholds that > should be reached. > > ############################## JT8 ################################### > > JT8 is a mode designed for amateur QSOs and beacon-like transmissions at > MF and LF. The mode uses the same 72-bit user messages as JT65, > augmented by a 12-bit cyclic redundancy check (CRC). Error-control > coding uses a convolutional code with constraint length K=3D16, rate > r=3D1/2, and a zero tail, leading to an encoded message length of > (72+12+15)*2 =3D 198 bits. Modulation is 8-FSK, so a transmission > requires 198/3 =3D 66 information-carrying channel symbols. Two 8x8 > Costas arrays are added to each transmission for purposes of time and > frequency synchronization. A full transmission thus contains 66 + 16 =3D > 82 symbols. Tone spacing df of the 8-FSK modulation is equal to the > keying rate; symbol duration tsym =3D 1/df, and the total occupied > bandwidth is 8*df. The actual transmission length TxT is slightly less > than the T/R sequence time, to allow for possible message decoding > before the next transmission starts. > > Parameters of the five JT8 sub-modes are summarized in the following > table, along with S/N thresholds measured by simulation on an AWGN > (additive white Gaussian noise) channel. > > Mode T/R TxT df tsym BW S/N* > (m) (s) (Hz) (s) (Hz) (dB) > ----------------------------------------------- > JT8-1 1 52 1.577 0.63 12.6 -26.9 > JT8-2 2 112 0.732 1.37 5.9 -30.2 > JT8-5 5 292 0.281 3.56 2.2 -34.4 > JT8-10 10 592 0.139 7.22 1.1 -37.5 > JT8-30 30 1792 0.046 21.85 0.4 -42.3 > ----------------------------------------------- > * Noise power measured in a 2500 Hz bandwidth. > > ######################################################################## > > As you can see, with 2-minute transmissions JT8-2 has 1-2 dB better > sensitivity than WSPR. This is because 8-FSK is more efficient than > 4-FSK and because in JT8 less Tx energy is "wasted" on the > synchronization task. JT8-30 does about 12 dB better than JT8-2. > > As time is available in coming weeks, I hope to start some coding. > > Your comments would of course be welcome! > > -- 73, Joe, K1JT > > --=20 http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/ http://www.g3xbm.co.uk https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/ http://qss2.blogspot.com/ --00151758b1f4f164d604ca4ff3d1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Stefan,

Thank you for forwarding the message from Joe K1JT.
<= br>This is most encouraging: JT8-30 at ~12dB better than WSPR2 would be so = useful on LF/MF.=A0 I hope Joe can fit this exciting development around his= busy work schedule. His superb weak signal software is such an asset to th= e amateur community.

73s
Roger G3XBM


On 22 Septembe= r 2012 20:07, Stefan Sch=E4fer <Stefan.Schaefer@iup.un= i-heidelberg.de> wrote:
FYI, message from Joe/K1JT=A0 (permission to forward it to the group).

73, Stefan/DK7FC

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: Fwd: LF: Experimental software for WSPR-8 and -32
Datum: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 14:11:10 -0400
Von: Joe Taylor
An: Stefan Sch=E4fer
[...]
I had some free time recently to think further about a more sensitive=
=20
mode for MF and LF use.  Here is a very brief and preliminary planning=20
statement, including simulation results for the decoding thresholds that=20
should be reached.

############################## JT8 ###################################

JT8 is a mode designed for amateur QSOs and beacon-like transmissions at=20
MF and LF.  The mode uses the same 72-bit user messages as JT65,=20
augmented by a 12-bit cyclic redundancy check (CRC).  Error-control=20
coding uses a convolutional code with constraint length K=3D16, rate=20
r=3D1/2, and a zero tail, leading to an encoded message length of=20
(72+12+15)*2 =3D 198 bits.  Modulation is 8-FSK, so a transmission=20
requires 198/3 =3D 66 information-carrying channel symbols.  Two 8x8=20
Costas arrays are added to each transmission for purposes of time and=20
frequency synchronization.  A full transmission thus contains 66 + 16 =3D=
=20
82 symbols.  Tone spacing df of the 8-FSK modulation is equal to the=20
keying rate; symbol duration tsym =3D 1/df, and the total occupied=20
bandwidth is 8*df.  The actual transmission length TxT is slightly less=20
than the T/R sequence time, to allow for possible message decoding=20
before the next transmission starts.

Parameters of the five JT8 sub-modes are summarized in the following=20
table, along with S/N thresholds measured by simulation on an AWGN=20
(additive white Gaussian noise) channel.

Mode   T/R   TxT    df    tsym   BW    S/N*
       (m)   (s)   (Hz)    (s)  (Hz)   (dB)
-----------------------------------------------
JT8-1    1    52  1.577   0.63  12.6  -26.9
JT8-2    2   112  0.732   1.37   5.9  -30.2
JT8-5    5   292  0.281   3.56   2.2  -34.4
JT8-10  10   592  0.139   7.22   1.1  -37.5
JT8-30  30  1792  0.046  21.85   0.4  -42.3
-----------------------------------------------
* Noise power measured in a 2500 Hz bandwidth.

########################################################################

As you can see, with 2-minute transmissions JT8-2 has 1-2 dB better=20
sensitivity than WSPR.  This is because 8-FSK is more efficient than=20
4-FSK and because in JT8 less Tx energy is "wasted" on the=20
synchronization task.  JT8-30 does about 12 dB better than JT8-2.

As time is available in coming weeks, I hope to start some coding.

Your comments would of course be welcome!

	-- 73, Joe, K1JT



--
=A0http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
http://www.g3xbm.co.uk
https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/
http://qss2.blogspot.com/

=
--00151758b1f4f164d604ca4ff3d1--