[Lowfer] Modes, signaling, and data recovery

[Les Rayburn]

Just today I got mail from a fellow lowfer discussing starting
experiments with HELL mode on LF. It got me wondering
if we all didn't need some better background/testing procedures
for evaluating new modes (short of putting them on the air
and hoping for receptions).

The problem with using strictly on air testing as an evaluation tool
is that it is subject to the whims of propagation and also
the distances, skip zones, etc. between stations.

When Wolf was introduced two years ago, Stewart was kind enough
to explain the signaling techniques involved. Also Lyle, myself and others
were able to run off air tests using noise samples, and then local
on air tests using variable attenuators on the receive side to determine
the softwares ability to detect signals below the noise level.

These tests lead many of us to believe that WOLF offers the possibility of weak
signal detection on a par with QRSS60, but while passing a greater amount of
data in the same time period.

Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to "do the math" to compare say Jason to
Wolf, in terms of both signal recovery and data throughput...but I do know that
it should be possible to make such comparisons. Anybody care to tackle
a few of these?

Stewart and Bill de Carle have perhaps the most experience in this field, 
but I
am aware of at least three or four others on the list who should be able to
provide meaningful analysis.

Les Rayburn, director
High Noon Film & Interactive
100 Centerview Drive
Suite 111
Birmingham, AL 35216
(205) 824-8930
(205) 824-8960 FAX
(205) 253-4867 CELL
http://www.highnoonfilm.com