Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by klubnl.pl (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id wBQGG0ao000564 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 17:16:08 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1gcBmt-00070j-2M for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:12:03 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1gcBmq-00070a-U6 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:12:00 +0000 Received: from proofpoint-cluster.metrocast.net ([65.175.128.136]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91_59-0488984) (envelope-from ) id 1gcBmp-00074y-5B for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:11:59 +0000 Received: from [192.168.2.7] (d-69-161-84-15.cpe.metrocast.net [69.161.84.15]) (authenticated bits=0) by apple.metrocast.net (8.14.7/8.14.4) with ESMTP id wBQGBu7b026128 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:11:56 GMT From: Rob Renoud Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 11:11:56 -0500 Message-Id: References: <3202482BEB3E4D1FB43595C19ED1B933@Rob64PC> In-Reply-To: To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Mailer: iPad Mail (16C50) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.22.28,1.0.8,0.0.0000 definitions=2018-12-26_08:2018-12-19,2018-12-26,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1810110000 definitions=main-1812260147 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Paul, Thanks for the details regarding the Eb/N0 numbers - I though, perhaps, that the Eb/N0 was a default value it was much higher than SL Spectrum Display appeared to support. The carrier Eb/N0 for the three decodes were 26.1, 24.5 and 22.3 dB respectively which also closely track with the actual carrier S/Ns for all three as reported by the decoder and observed in SpecLab. 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 [65.175.128.136 listed in list.dnswl.org] X-Scan-Signature: 64437c466041e93ffedda7fb96b22b71 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: LF: EbNaut 2200m X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by klubnl.pl id wBQGG0ao000564 Paul, Thanks for the details regarding the Eb/N0 numbers - I though, perhaps, that the Eb/N0 was a default value it was much higher than SL Spectrum Display appeared to support. The carrier Eb/N0 for the three decodes were 26.1, 24.5 and 22.3 dB respectively which also closely track with the actual carrier S/Ns for all three as reported by the decoder and observed in SpecLab. Tnx agn & 73, Rob - K3RWR > On Dec 26, 2018, at 10:11, Paul Nicholson wrote: > > > Rob - K3RWR, wrote: > > > 2200Z: Rank 0; Eb/N0 71.8 dB; MX &HNY > > 2300Z: Rank 0; Eb/N0 71.8 dB; MX &HNY > > > Blockbuster signal if one can believe the reported Eb/N0 ... > > Indeed, a blockbuster signal - no symbol errors at all! > > The decoding program makes an estimate of Eb/N0 from the > number of symbol errors. This fails, saturating at 71.8dB, > when there are no errors. > > It also reports a 'carrier Eb/N0' which is an estimate of > Eb/N0 based on the measured S/N of the signal. This is > usually the best one to use. > > -- > Paul Nicholson > -- >