To: | [email protected] |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: LF: slow WSPR? |
From: | Markus Vester <[email protected]> |
Date: | Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:41:21 -0400 (EDT) |
Cc: | [email protected], [email protected] |
Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20110426; t=1347385281; bh=HVgiEpv0/EVaF2+3hjImnD49ZNbqSQIPBraORYT8yEg=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=u0nLxZniJEaAxuRY1vx1sgwfiR3fPMD86a0QtS6Qoa8uaO9k1OE2j0PPNXVFQZz8M gGmnCfexqLe3WaDdY2ojNGg0PuBkkfU3bZgoE+ie1t4PoCdY6ufCWw8uGSaXSD5Nfz SJr6nlp9yvqlFkpsYR1VJmltWlgvgJn7XM8oDqUk= |
In-reply-to: | <[email protected]> |
References: | <[email protected]> |
Reply-to: | [email protected] |
Sender: | [email protected] |
Hi Stefan, LF,
if I remember correctly, Rik's careful evaluaton of SNR performance in February resulted in a threshold for reliable decoding of -23 dB for Opera-2, versus -29 dB for WSPR. This is carrier power versus noise in 2.5 kHz, Opera "average power" reports are scaled 4 dB lower. Thus at same available ERP, WSPR would indeed have a 4x advantage in speed, and be equivalent to Opera-8. WSPR also transmits slightly more information, ie. locator field and power.
Rik also looked at QRSS and DFCW, which at 100 % readability seemed to provide same or slightly higher throughput than Opera (with some depence on callsign length and viewing skills).
Technically it would be straightforward to generate a slow WSPR transmission, and also certainly feasible to play back an accelerated recording. You'd have to get the timing right to fit to the 2-minute slots, and the web reports would probably show wrong frequencies, times and SNR. As Roger says, asking Joe Taylor for a modified version would be a better permanent solution.
But whether slow or fast, it' still a digital mode, containing a blackbox producing either valid output or nothing at all. If you are after detection of the weakest possible signals, in my opinion the visual modes or even a straight carrier transmission will be the only way to see those "T" and "M" traces, along with the features of the noise or QRM which we are trying to overcome.
Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)
Von: Stefan Schäfer <[email protected]> An: rsgb_lf_group <[email protected]> Cc: Edgar J Twining <[email protected]> Verschickt: Di, 11 Sept 2012 1:14 am Betreff: LF: slow WSPR? It's a pity that there is no slow-WSPR, e.g. needing 32 minutes or so. |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | RE: LF: NA in CT, Terry GW0EZY |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: LF: MF PA, mal hamilton |
Previous by Thread: | Re: LF: slow WSPR?, Graham |
Next by Thread: | Re: LF: slow WSPR?, Stefan Schäfer |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |