Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mb04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 36A62380000BB; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:53:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TeRxP-0004Mz-FU for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:52:47 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TeRxO-0004Mq-TC for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:52:46 +0000 Received: from smtpout3.wanadoo.co.uk ([80.12.242.59] helo=smtpout.wanadoo.co.uk) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TeRxM-00063x-PJ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:52:45 +0000 Received: from AGB ([2.26.29.179]) by mwinf5d45 with ME id VqsP1k00K3rsAES03qsP8g; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:52:24 +0100 Message-ID: <03C9BF77F0024017A8A2B7AF54621475@AGB> From: "Graham" To: References: <50B76F28.6040103@princeton.edu> <50B7728C.9050004@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <425211790.20121129174759@mterrier.net> <50B7981A.8000804@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <3BD64A7C261A4B98BA0FDA8D1B8ED955@White> <50B79F99.30706@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <50B7A63D.4080205@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <50B7A888.2040105@broadpark.no> <50B7AC55.6030004@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <9F1A99AA5B9843E39732D8BBA787F399@SV8CSHP> <50B7B684.1070904@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <50B7D99B.6000705@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <001201cdce89$dd9c6cb0$6401a8c0@JAYDELL> <50B8B7B5.3090200@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: <50B8B7B5.3090200@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:52:23 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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: Would be gain 10*log(30/10) = 4.77 dB SNR when going from JT9-10 to JT9-30, assuming there is no negative effect due to QSB and so on? Would someone be interested in tests in JT9-30? S.. I think that's a very difficult question to answer ... this time , last year in the Op development phase (not phase cont) such calculations did predict expected performance's but in real circuits the results varied greatly [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.12.242.59 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: e3d323418d60e0f7f0af176deb9f3e2b Subject: Re: LF: 136 JT9-10 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0037_01CDCF0A.4E3D5F80" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TITLE_EMPTY,MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME 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: 3039ac1d601850b8c86525aa X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0037_01CDCF0A.4E3D5F80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Would be gain 10*log(30/10) =3D 4.77 dB SNR when going from JT9-10 to = JT9-30, assuming there is no negative effect due to QSB and so on? Would = someone be interested in tests in JT9-30? S.. I think that's a very difficult question to answer ... this time , = last year in the Op development phase (not phase cont) such = calculations did predict expected performance's but in real = circuits the results varied greatly=20 One major factor is the modes ability to withstand data (BIT) = loss during qsb , this is a function of the time hopping = signal shuffling aspect , FEC and the demodulators ability to = capitalise on short burst's in propagation , from the various = qrsss plots the signal on 136 over range is never constant , so = fec would need to cover the expected outage times and the ability = to recover data randomly along the time line=20 Thinking at 90 deg , this could be the downfall of 'small' = packet data modes , where a compressed data block 'has to be' = transmitted in a given time window .where as a conventional = free running data system may employ many layers of fec and = numeric signal shuffling to ensure , qsb/muti path/ doppler = affects are combated .. the play off being data rate / speed /s/n = .. and time / frequency stability .. which in turn limits user = access .. no point in having a mode that only a few stations can = use ? =20 G.. From: Stefan Sch=E4fer=20 Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 1:42 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Cc: Vasily Savchenko ; Joe Taylor=20 Subject: Re: LF: 136 JT9-10 Hello LF,=20 Thanks to DF6NM, RN3AGC, F5WK, DF2JP, UA0SNV, SV8CS, W1VD, LA5VNA (and = those which i forgot to mention) for the JT9-10 reports on 137.42 kHz!!=20 I guess that was a first TA crossing in JT9 on LF. Jay, did you have = local QRN or was it a quiet night? Did you try to watch the signal in a = spectrogram? How many decodes did you get in the night? Or was it the = only one? 23:30 is normally the time where the band opens between us = these days, so i guess there have been a number of further decodes. = Looking forward to that :-)=20 Would be gain 10*log(30/10) =3D 4.77 dB SNR when going from JT9-10 to = JT9-30, assuming there is no negative effect due to QSB and so on? Would = someone be interested in tests in JT9-30?=20 I guess this evening is reserved to MF CW here but late in the night i = could run some JT9-30 sequences. MF alternatively. There have been further decodes at UA0SNV (5760 km over land): All that I received today. 1949 0 -38 2.2 1419.65 -1 DK7FC JN49IK 2009 3 -35 1.3 1419.62 0 DK7FC JN49IK 2019 2 -36 1.7 1419.56 0 DK7FC JN49IK 2149 5 -32 2.6 1419.65 1 DK7FC JN49IK 2159 3 -34 2.6 1419.65 1 DK7FC JN49IK 73 !! Vasily. Best 73, Stefan/DK7FC Am 30.11.2012 00:32, schrieb jrusgrove@comcast.net:=20 Bingo=20 2329 3 -34 0.0 1419.83 0 DK7FC JN49IK=20 http://www.w1vd.com/grabber.html=20 Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0037_01CDCF0A.4E3D5F80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Would be gain 10*log(30/10) =3D 4.77 dB SNR when going from = JT9-10 to=20 JT9-30, assuming there is no negative effect due to QSB and so on? Would = someone=20 be interested in tests in JT9-30?
 
S..
 
I think that's  a very difficult  question  to  = answer=20 ... this time , last  year  in the  Op development  = phase=20 (not phase cont) such  calculations  did  predict=20  expected  performance's  but  in real  = circuits =20  the  results  varied greatly
 
One  major  factor  is the  modes  = ability =20 to  withstand  data (BIT)  loss  during  = qsb =20 , this  is  a  function  of the  =20 time  hopping  signal shuffling  aspect  , = FEC =20 and  the  demodulators   ability  to =20 capitalise  on short  burst's  in  propagation = ,  from=20 the  various  qrsss   plots  the  = signal  on=20 136  over  range  is  never constant , so fec =20 would  need  to  cover the  expected  = outage =20 times and the ability to  recover  data  = randomly  =20 along the  time  line
 
Thinking  at  90 deg  , this  could  be = the =20 downfall  of  'small'  packet data  modes  ,=20 where  a  compressed data  block  'has to be' =20 transmitted  in a  given  time  window  = .where =20 as  a  conventional   free  running  = data =20 system may  employ  many  layers of   fec and=20 numeric  signal  shuffling  to  ensure , qsb/muti=20 path/  doppler   affects  are  combated  = ..=20 the  play off  being  data  rate / speed /s/n  = .. =20 and time  / frequency stability ..  which  in turn =20 limits user access .. no point  in having  a  = mode =20 that  only  a few  stations  can  use =20 ?   
 
G..

From: Stefan = Sch=E4fer
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 1:42 PM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Subject: Re: LF: 136 JT9-10

Hello LF,

Thanks to DF6NM, RN3AGC, F5WK, DF2JP, = UA0SNV,=20 SV8CS, W1VD, LA5VNA (and those which i forgot to mention) for the JT9-10 = reports=20 on 137.42 kHz!!

I guess that was a first TA crossing in JT9 on = LF. Jay,=20 did you have local QRN or was it a quiet night? Did you try to watch the = signal=20 in a spectrogram? How many decodes did you get in the night? Or was it = the only=20 one? 23:30 is normally the time where the band opens between us these = days, so i=20 guess there have been a number of further decodes. Looking forward to = that :-)=20

Would be gain 10*log(30/10) =3D 4.77 dB SNR when going from = JT9-10 to=20 JT9-30, assuming there is no negative effect due to QSB and so on? Would = someone=20 be interested in tests in JT9-30?

I guess this evening is = reserved to MF=20 CW here but late in the night i could run some JT9-30 sequences. MF=20 alternatively.


There have been further decodes at UA0SNV = (5760 km=20 over land):
All that I received=20 today.

1949   = 0 =20 -38   2.2 1419.65  -1   DK7FC=20 JN49IK
2009   3  -35   1.3=20 1419.62   0   DK7FC = JN49IK
2019  =20 2  -36   1.7 1419.56   0   DK7FC=20 JN49IK
2149   5  -32   2.6=20 1419.65   1   DK7FC = JN49IK
2159  =20 3  -34   2.6 1419.65   1   DK7FC=20 JN49IK
73 !! Vasily.

Best 73,=20 Stefan/DK7FC




Am 30.11.2012 00:32, schrieb jrusgrove@comcast.net:=20
Bingo=20

2329   3  -34   0.0 = 1419.83  =20 0   DK7FC JN49IK

http://www.w1vd.com/grabber.htm= l=20

Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  WE2XGR/2=20



------=_NextPart_000_0037_01CDCF0A.4E3D5F80--