Hi Jay the only thought I have is to use a tuned loop and compare the two
quadrature positions these should be at least 30dB different in strength but
that may not be enough for John when the Moon is full !!
I have thought about this "noise thing" before...Wolf is adding white noise
presumably.... I had always wondered whether the character of the noise at
LF was different from that and that maybe this would lead to a different
result. I always consider the noise at LF to be "peaky" or "spikey" rather
than the smooth noise. There is probably a way of quantifying this....about
20 years ago I did see some work by a maths specialist who was trying to
attack problems like this in the communications field. I seem to remember he
invented something like a "peakyness" parameter to specify non-Gaussian
noise. Fascinating, but likely to generate throbbing sensations between the
ears and an immediate search for the asperin tub !!
Cheers de Alan G3NYK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Rusgrove" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: 14 November 2005 22:30
Subject: Re: LF: WD2XES Slow Howl
Wolf
That's good to hear. As Alan pointed out earlier...running WOLF on a tiny
antenna and therefore against a quiet noise floor is different than
connected to a real antenna. Unfortunately there's no way to make XES weak
at my location...unless he turns the wick way down :~) Maybe we can try that
over the weekend, John.
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: Wolf DL4YHF
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: LF: WD2XES Slow Howl
Hi John, Jay & others,
I checked the performance of the slow WOLF variants, by adding an
increasing amount of synthetic noise to the received signal until copy
disappeared. Then switched TX+RX to the slower variants, and -voila-
copy again. To do this in real-time, I have added the option to add
noise to the *received* signal with adjustable level in the WOLF GUI. I
don't have any precise results yet. But at least, the slo-mo-WOLF has
large ears ;-)
73, Wolf .
|
