Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1169; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=no version=3.1.3 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id t0ALMxAD025496 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:22:59 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1YA3P7-0004B5-C0 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 21:17:05 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1YA3P7-0004Au-3j for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 21:17:05 +0000 Received: from out61-ams.mf.surf.net ([145.0.1.61]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1YA3P5-0002dw-Ii for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 21:17:03 +0000 Received: from smtps.utwente.nl (smtp-o2.utsp.utwente.nl [130.89.2.10]) by outgoing3-ams.mf.surf.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id t0ALH274023367 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:17:02 +0100 Received: from utwks06146.ad.utwente.nl (utwks06146.ad.utwente.nl [130.89.13.213]) by smtps.utwente.nl (8.13.8) with ESMTP id t0ALH2YF016115 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:17:02 +0100 Received: by utwks06146.ad.utwente.nl (Postfix, from userid 17643373) id 2408245C0E28; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:17:02 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:17:02 +0100 From: Pieter-Tjerk de Boer To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Message-ID: <20150110211701.GN29958@cs.utwente.nl> Mail-Followup-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <20150108220755.GA20377@cs.utwente.nl> <54AF0F8C.8030106@virginbroadband.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54AF0F8C.8030106@virginbroadband.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: utwente-out:default, base:default, @@RPTN) X-CanIt-Geo: ip=130.89.2.10; country=NL; region=Provincie Overijssel; city=Enschede; latitude=52.2195; longitude=6.8912; http://maps.google.com/maps?q=52.2195,6.8912&z=6 X-CanItPRO-Stream: utwente-out:default (inherits from utwente:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 0bNClh2ap - 4096c465fd54 - 20150110 (trained as not-spam) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 10.1.3.10 X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) X-Scan-Signature: 87966b345956c8ef3389b993f6a18f4e Subject: Re: LF: Eb/N0 values for amateur modes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1937 On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 10:15:24AM +1100, edgar wrote: > In your email, in which mode grouping would DFCW 180 fit? Not in any, really. I'm not aware of any (published) experiments having been done to establish decoding thresholds for it, which I could use to put it in the table. Compared to regular CW transmitted at the same (peak) power, DFCW has about 3 dB more average power because the transmitter is on continuously, so just because of that, it should give better performance at the same _peak_ power level. However, whether the performance difference is more or less than 3 dB, and thus whether it is better or worse than CW at the same _average_ power (as normally used for Eb/N0 calculation), is harder to predict. Regards, Pieter-Tjerk, PA3FWM