From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?VIGILANT_Luis_Fern=E1ndez?= <luis@vigilant.es>
To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Thread-Topic: LF: WSPR-15 in WSJT-X
Thread-Index: AdSCrSIBQQnTWAcERTO1i8YOmQTAZAACLneAABdLleA=
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 10:06:03 +0000
Message-ID: <6DB8451D7F3D3947A5918808A59621EA14E212CA@servigilant.vigilant.local>
References: <6DB8451D7F3D3947A5918808A59621EA14E20EF0@servigilant.vigilant.local>
 <da0c8b2b-800c-21eb-9627-ee18557b360a@charter.net>
In-Reply-To: <da0c8b2b-800c-21eb-9627-ee18557b360a@charter.net>
Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US
Content-Language: es-ES
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: LF: WSPR-15 in WSJT-X
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi All

I agree. Absolutely.  A greater number of opinions will help

In another comment from K1JT, he complains about the lack of feedback from the LF/MF users
And seems that he is completely right. We sould try to be heared as a group with "special needs" for experimenting in this bands
Same as other groups with interest in EME, microwaves and other exceptions to the FT8 tide

73 de Luis
EA5DOM

-----Mensaje original-----
De: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] En nombre de John Andrews
Enviado el: viernes, 23 de noviembre de 2018 0:51
Para: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Asunto: Re: LF: WSPR-15 in WSJT-X

Joe has raised those questions before, and I've assumed that he has not been happy with the responses, including mine. Maybe a greater number of opinions would be of help.

Regarding #2, the averaging or summing of results worked very well in WOLF. Of course, since the message length was 96 seconds, you could collect quite a few of them before running out of patience (or FETS). 
Since Joe is hinting at shorter message times in his proposed new mode, don't reject the summing aspect until we know the parameters.

John, W1TAG

On 11/22/2018 4:49 PM, VIGILANT Luis Fernández wrote:
> Hi LF
> 
> Regarding this issue there is an answer from Joe, K1JT Original 
> message follows
> 
> 73 de Luis
> EA5DOM
> 
>  1.
>     
> ######################################################################
> #####
>  2.
>  3.
>     I have received similar requests from a few others. We should 
> probably  4.
>     address this perceived need before too long. I would like to 
> retire  5.
>     WSPR-X, anyway, and do further development within WSJT-X.
>  6.
>  7.
>     I am not persuaded that WSPR-15 is really the best way to go. Here 
> are  8.
>     some potentially important questions:
>  9.
> 10.
>     1. Is it clear that in practice WSPR-15 provides LF/MF decodes at 
> lower 11.
>     S/N than WSPR-2? If so, ho much lower?
> 12.
> 13.
>     2. Could an equivalent gain in performance be achieved by having 
> the 14.
>     decoder average several consecutive, properly synchronized WSPR-2 
> 15.
>     transmissions?
> 16.
> 17.
>     3. If a more sensitive WSPR-like mode is truly needed for LF/MF 
> 18.
>     experimentation, would it be better to create something that for 
> now 19.
>     I'll call "WSPR-MSK", which (like MSK144) uses OQPSK (Offset 
> Quadrature 20.
>     Phase-Shift Keying), a constant-envelope waveform, coherent 21.
>     demodulation, and an LDPC code? Steve (K9AN) and I have discussed 
> such 22.
>     a possible mode, and we might be more motivated to develop that 
> rather 23.
>     than going "back" to WSPR-15. I suspect WSPR-MSK could be made as 
> 24.
>     sensitive (or better) than WSPR-15, even with transmissions 
> shorter than 25.
>     15 minutes.
> 26.
> 27.
>     -- 73, Joe, K1JT
>