Joe has raised those questions before, and I've assumed that he has not
been happy with the responses, including mine. Maybe a greater number of
opinions would be of help.
Regarding #2, the averaging or summing of results worked very well in
WOLF. Of course, since the message length was 96 seconds, you could
collect quite a few of them before running out of patience (or FETS).
Since Joe is hinting at shorter message times in his proposed new mode,
don't reject the summing aspect until we know the parameters.
John, W1TAG
On 11/22/2018 4:49 PM, VIGILANT Luis Fernández wrote:
Hi LF
Regarding this issue there is an answer from Joe, K1JT
Original message follows
73 de Luis
EA5DOM
1.
###########################################################################
2.
3.
I have received similar requests from a few others. We should probably
4.
address this perceived need before too long. I would like to retire
5.
WSPR-X, anyway, and do further development within WSJT-X.
6.
7.
I am not persuaded that WSPR-15 is really the best way to go. Here are
8.
some potentially important questions:
9.
10.
1. Is it clear that in practice WSPR-15 provides LF/MF decodes at lower
11.
S/N than WSPR-2? If so, ho much lower?
12.
13.
2. Could an equivalent gain in performance be achieved by having the
14.
decoder average several consecutive, properly synchronized WSPR-2
15.
transmissions?
16.
17.
3. If a more sensitive WSPR-like mode is truly needed for LF/MF
18.
experimentation, would it be better to create something that for now
19.
I'll call "WSPR-MSK", which (like MSK144) uses OQPSK (Offset Quadrature
20.
Phase-Shift Keying), a constant-envelope waveform, coherent
21.
demodulation, and an LDPC code? Steve (K9AN) and I have discussed such
22.
a possible mode, and we might be more motivated to develop that rather
23.
than going "back" to WSPR-15. I suspect WSPR-MSK could be made as
24.
sensitive (or better) than WSPR-15, even with transmissions shorter than
25.
15 minutes.
26.
27.
-- 73, Joe, K1JT
|
