Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Another New Mode Emerging

Expand Messages
  • Russ Tower
    Although this is not Q15X25, I thought that since all of us are digital experimenters at heart, you might be interested in reading this clip from: Jim s
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 4 10:22 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Although this is not Q15X25, I thought that since all of us are "digital
      experimenters" at heart, you might be interested in reading this clip from:

      Jim's GAZETTE
      Newsletter #139
      5 February 2003

      73/Russ
      K1DOW

      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
      If you are in need of yet another new mode, there are two to view. Both are
      experimental, both are designed to dig deeper into
      the noise than PSK31. Patrick F6CTE authored PSKAM and PSKAM10. If you wish
      to join in the testing and evaluation of
      new software go to http://members.aol.com/f6cte. Patricks Email address is
      f6cte@....

      The objective for PSKAM is to reduce the error rate even in bad conditions
      while maintaining a throughput of about 30WPM
      and equaling the stability of PSK. PSK, remember, assures communication down
      to about 9dB. PSKAM plans to work down
      to 11dB. There are trade-offs, of course.

      PSKAM10 is of slower speed but a higher order of performance. The aim is to
      maintain communication with a S/N down to
      19dB. That means the signal is 100 times less powerful than noise! What a
      promise that is.

      From the sound of it, there is still a fair amount of work to be done. And,
      no, there is no discussion yet as to the location of
      calling frequencies. But, rest assured the product will ultimately be
      available and will be free to all users.
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    • Mark Miller
      I think there are some misprints here. If PSK assures communication down to a S/N of 9dB, why bother with PSKAM at 11dB? 19dB means that the signal is almost
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 5 2:51 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        I think there are some misprints here. If PSK assures communication down
        to a S/N of 9dB, why bother with PSKAM at 11dB? 19dB means that the signal
        is almost 100 times more powerful than the noise not the other way
        around. I don't see a minus sign there, and if I did I would probably not
        believe it. I think this article is flawed or am I thinking incorrectly?

        I downloaded the software a few days ago, but will have to use VOX to key,
        since on MixW I use CI-V to key my 746.

        73
        Mark N5RFX


        >The objective for PSKAM is to reduce the error rate even in bad conditions
        >while maintaining a throughput of about 30WPM
        >and equaling the stability of PSK. PSK, remember, assures communication down
        >to about 9dB. PSKAM plans to work down
        >to 11dB. There are trade-offs, of course.
        >
        >PSKAM10 is of slower speed but a higher order of performance. The aim is to
        >maintain communication with a S/N down to
        >19dB. That means the signal is 100 times less powerful than noise! What a
        >promise that is.
      • Tomi Manninen OH2BNS
        ... Probably they either left out the minus sign or they are talking about N/S ratios... :-) Anyway these sort of figures are pretty useless as there is no
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 5 5:47 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Mark Miller wrote:

          > I think there are some misprints here. If PSK assures communication down
          > to a S/N of 9dB, why bother with PSKAM at 11dB? 19dB means that the signal
          > is almost 100 times more powerful than the noise not the other way
          > around. I don't see a minus sign there, and if I did I would probably not
          > believe it. I think this article is flawed or am I thinking incorrectly?

          Probably they either left out the minus sign or they are talking about N/S
          ratios... :-)

          Anyway these sort of figures are pretty useless as there is no reference
          to the channel used. Probably they are AWGN figures in a 3 KHz channel but
          then HF is typically anything but AWGN...

          --
          Tomi Manninen Internet: oh2bns@...
          OH2BNS AX.25: oh2bns@...
          KP20ME04 Amprnet: oh2bns@...
        • ka2hzo <ronchap@att.net>
          Is there a PSKKAM forum yet on Yahoo? Anyway. PSK31 = -9 DB PSKAM = -11 DB PSKAM10 = -19 DB (Amazing!!!!!!!!!!) ... Comparison with PSK31: it is reminded
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 6 8:28 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Is there a PSKKAM forum yet on Yahoo?

            Anyway.

            PSK31 = -9 DB
            PSKAM = -11 DB
            PSKAM10 = -19 DB (Amazing!!!!!!!!!!)

            -----------


            Comparison with PSK31: it is reminded that the PSK31 mode is designed
            to assure communications with ratio Signal-to-Noise until 0.1 (-9
            dB), so a signal about 10 less powerful that noise. The equivalent
            Morse speed is 37 words/minute in capital and 51 words/minute in
            small letters.
            The difference between the PSK31 (-9 dB) and PSKAM (-11 dB) is about
            2 dB in Signal-to-Noise ratio.

            For PSKAM10, the aim is doing a communication with a S/N down to –19
            dB (signal 100 times less powerful than noise), accepting a slow
            typing speed (6 words/minute).


            73 Ron.





            --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, Tomi Manninen OH2BNS <tpm@p...> wrote:
            > On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Mark Miller wrote:
            >
            > > I think there are some misprints here. If PSK assures
            communication down
            > > to a S/N of 9dB, why bother with PSKAM at 11dB? 19dB means that
            the signal
            > > is almost 100 times more powerful than the noise not the other
            way
            > > around. I don't see a minus sign there, and if I did I would
            probably not
            > > believe it. I think this article is flawed or am I thinking
            incorrectly?
            >
            > Probably they either left out the minus sign or they are talking
            about N/S
            > ratios... :-)
            >
            > Anyway these sort of figures are pretty useless as there is no
            reference
            > to the channel used. Probably they are AWGN figures in a 3 KHz
            channel but
            > then HF is typically anything but AWGN...
            >
            > --
            > Tomi Manninen Internet: oh2bns@s...
            > OH2BNS AX.25: oh2bns@o...
            > KP20ME04 Amprnet: oh2bns@o...
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.