Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: Eb/N0 values for amateur modes

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: Eb/N0 values for amateur modes
From: Pieter-Tjerk de Boer <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 13:34:07 +0100
In-reply-to: <FD91181D329143B38573246548F8F478@gnat>
Mail-followup-to: [email protected]
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <FD91181D329143B38573246548F8F478@gnat>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 10:13:20PM +0000, Alan Melia wrote:
> Hi Pieter, Dave G3YXM and I did some quick and dirty estimations of
> QRSS about 10 years ago on 136kHz I cant remember whether we did
> DFCW where the main advantage is that it is faster, but the decode
> threshold is about the same as QRSS  It is a little subjective but
> the results seemed reasonably what we might suspect.
> 
> They may be on his web-site still  www.wireless.org

Found it, at http://www.wireless.org.uk/signoise.htm . No DFCW there though.

The QRSS line in my table is based on ON7YD's tests, 
http://on7yd.strobbe.eu/QRSS/

> I believe someone in the States also did some tests, John W1TAG
> could probably help there. They may be on the LWCA web-site.

I'd be interested, but can't find something relevant on the LWCA site.

B.t.w., what I wrote earlier about DFCW is wrong; I somehow thought DFCW
was simply morse code sent using FSK instead of ASK, but it's different,
using 2 tones for dots and dashes. Hard to say what this does for the
required SNR and Eb/N0 compared to CW, as both the average power and the
data rate increase.

73, Pieter-Tjerk, PA3FWM


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