Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: OPERA - why it's less data than normal CW ?

To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: LF: OPERA - why it's less data than normal CW ?
From: "mal hamilton" <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 18:09:19 -0000
References: <780955996.1040888.1325583040480.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb057><CAA8k23TCT9qzrQykuWVa3AD0uOd_cPbd7XbKP7bXONWrpo=TYw@mail.gmail.com><[email protected]> <CAA8k23T72GjJO_DPEV8TytLHLQUQMAzhgp4o8XtqBeRNU6Asmw@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
Nothing wrong with Manchester.Could the problem be south of Watford Junction

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy Talbot" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: LF: OPERA - why it's less data than normal CW ?


Until I deleted every last trace of the software after discovering it
was sending IP packets, I had started analysing the Tx sequence to see
if it made any sense

For any given sub-mode, the Tx slots are all equal length, so allocate
a 0 and1 to each Tx state.
If you do an autocorrelation on the resulting sequence, (by XORing a
delayed version of the pattern with itself) some interesting longer
sequences show up - always an even number of 1's' and 0's' for
example.
It almost has a vague Manchester Coding feel to it.

But all analysis is stopped and will permanently stay so until a
version appears that will not send IP packets.
It was much easier to 'crack'  WSJT coding - just a case of reading
the source code :-)

'jnt


On 3 January 2012 17:42, Alberto di Bene <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/3/2012 10:36 AM, Andy Talbot wrote:
>
> If 'someone' would publish the innards of that mode, a simple Tx only
> keyer could surely be developed, and te mode woue be useful
>
> And maybe somebody could even adventure in writing an Rx program...
> but of course the protocol needs to be completely open source for this.
>
> 73 Alberto I2PHD
>
>




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>