Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: Re: more Wolf tests

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: Re: more Wolf tests
From: "Rik Strobbe" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 10:41:50
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: <[email protected]>
Hello Mike & group,

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.

73, Rik  ON7YD

Yes. That is exactly why I have suggested that a WOLF transmission should have a few seconds of unmodulated carrier (or perhaps identifiably modulated - wobble) every few minutes. Also that any GUI-based WOLF front end should include a spectrogram-type window. This would allow WOLF transmissions to be seen without knowing in advance that they were there, and would also help frequency alignment. This would overcome one of the real difficulties in
the mode for random QSOs.

Mike, G3XDV (IO91VT)

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