ON7YD wrote:
> While WOLF is in an 'experimental stage' the carrier can be usefull for
> tuning purposes. But if you can detect a 2 or 3 second carrier, a DFCW QSO
> won't take more time than a WOLF QSO. So why make a simple thing difficult ?
> But wasn't it the (cl)aim that WOLF would be superior to primitive modes
> such as QRSS and DFCW ? If I remember well WOLF was given a 10dB credit
> over QRSS at 10 sec./dot, so assuming you want to copy a WOLF signal that
> is just 'at the edge' a 100 sec. carrier would be needed to make it visible
with
> spectrogram-like software.
Hmmm. I was originally suspicious of that figure, and have seen nothing yet
that supports it. I am not aware of any amateur radio WOLF reception so far
that would not have been viable using QRSS, but the technique is at an early
stage.
I am still keen on WOLF on the promise that it can produce results from a
relatively short peak in conditions, whilst QRSS/DFCW needs a longer period
of enhancement. The really big peaks - the ones that would allow you, for
instance, to get through - last only a few minutes. Even if it is no better
than 3s
dot DFCW, it may be an improvement in terms of time. This time factor was
identified this winter as the greatest barrier to regular two-way
transcontinental
QSOs.
Also, I am not suggesting that the carrier should provide anything readable,
merely showing that a signal is there. This could be well down on an 'M'
QRS/DFCW transmission.
I remain skeptical but fascinated.
Mike, G3XDV (IO91VT)
http://www.lf.thersgb.net
