To: | [email protected] |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: LF: WSPR or QRSS: which is better? |
From: | Andy Talbot <[email protected]> |
Date: | Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:12:45 +0100 |
Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=+jvpH3ShVmKxp80foaqYw+l2mFt+4Q+keE1vblHRZhQ=; b=kvtPJOJ0gtSyz+lc4ChQHh68qE/GvOV+a27ylRkbVSxdR/rBNhRqu+miypwpL5ZOiH 9TA9j/E9Th9yRc/69tlc0ZtDPQf4wJvX8tHRt+SObO2YGwJ4DbpBo0cDX7N5kanBeZ5r cXnKs/dEFNP6AKNn40LhCOkJE1MfllhXYE+3g= |
In-reply-to: | <CAHAQVWOwLaz104cZGhvbLr23zt+03-J2yMBTVm+Cep-rKFTmvw@mail.gmail.com> |
References: | <CAHAQVWOwLaz104cZGhvbLr23zt+03-J2yMBTVm+Cep-rKFTmvw@mail.gmail.com> |
Reply-to: | [email protected] |
Sender: | [email protected] |
WSPR works in a 1.46Hz signal bandwidth and because of its very high level of error correction and soft-decision decoding, means that it will work at a S/N of about 3dB in this bandwidth, and sometimes a bit lower still (Normally, FSK with no correction at all needs about 10 - 12dB S/N for near error-free performance)
QRSS has to show about 6 - 10dB in its signal bandwidth to be able to discern fully what is sent, although a slightly lower S/N may be useable when you 'know' what you should be receiving. (A form of forward error correction is now in use here as well perhaps :-) So lets say 5dB S/N is a working value..
So take 3dB in 1.46Hz as a starting point and derive the bandwidth for QRSS needed to get 5dB S/N with the same signal. This will have to be narrower to get a 2dB higher S/N and works out as 1.46 / 10^(2/10) = 0.92Hz
So QRSS used with a 0.9Hz bandwidth - which I think means about a 2 - 3s dot period ought to be decoded at the same S/N as a WSPR signal. Which is probably the info you wanted.
But now compare source coding efficiencies. WSPR fits a callsign, locator and power level into a 110 second transmission - and gives absolutely guaranteed error free decoding, or nothing at all. About 12 characters in actuality, but that is being a bit unfair as the coding forces certain callsign and locator formatting. So in all probablility, more like 7 or 8 effective characters (I'm being a bit empirical here)
Assuming standard QRSS - not DFCW - , which if like standard Morse, then 5 characters takes about 50 dot symbols to send (12WPM = 60 chars in 1 minute, = 1 char / second, or about 10 dot periods / second. Dot speed = WPM / 1.2) If we have 2s dots, that is 5 characters can be sent in the time for a WSPR transmission.
So as a quick estimate, WSPR wins by roughly 2dB in S/N terms for a given dot period / noise bandwidth. And at similar S/N values, WSPR is about 1.5 times faster
Andy
On 24 August 2011 16:42, Roger Lapthorn <[email protected]> wrote: A question for the coding experts here: WSPR is an excellent weak signal beaconing mode, but at what QRSS speed is QRSS "better" ? |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: LF: Re: WSPR or QRSS: which is better?, james . cowburn |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: LF: Re: WSPR or QRSS: which is better?, mal hamilton |
Previous by Thread: | Re: LF: Re: WSPR or QRSS: which is better?, Graham |
Next by Thread: | Re: LF: WSPR or QRSS: which is better?, mal hamilton |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |