Hello Phil,

Ionospheric Doppler produces fluctuations in the phase of the BPSK 
transmission. In Multipsk for BPSK, there is an indicator which name is 
"Quality" (for 1 to 5). It can give an idea of the Doppler: if the signal is 
strong and the quality is bad, it means that there is some Doppler. The worst 
case and I see this once, transmission is not possible in BPSK (or only at very 
high speeds as 125 bauds or more).

Signal Quality (Q)
A BPSK signal generates 2 phases: 0 and 180 °. More the signal is pure, the 
more the decoded phase is close to one of these two preceding phases. The 
average distance to these phases is computed then filtered over 2 seconds. 
According to the obtained distance, it is given a note between 1 to 5:

  a.. distance>30 °: Q=1 (very bad), 
  b.. distance between 16 and 30 °:Q=2 (bad), 
  c.. distance between 8 and 16 °: Q=3 (medium), 
  d.. distance between 4 and 8 °: Q=4 (good), 
  e.. distance <4 °: Q=5 (very good). 
Note: a random signal has an average distance of 45 °.

73
Patrick



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Phil Williams 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 2:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] IZ8BLY's PSK63F





  Demonstrating a suite of digital coding methods are vulnerable to Doppler 
spread does not tell the whole story.  What does the signal look like on the a 
spectrogram when subjected to Doppler spread?  Yes, you have incomplete or 
scrambled text, but then the root cause of that could be anything.

  It would be valuable to the community to be able to recognize the presence of 
Doppler spread by some visual or aural means.  Armed with this information then 
one begins to make choices of other modes that would be less vulnerable to the 
effects of Doppler spread.

  philw de ka1gmn


  On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Tony <d...@optonline.net> wrote:

      

    Phil, 


    > What about PSKFEC31 under the same test scenarios?  

    Have a look: 


    Path Simulation: High Latitude (Moderate) 
    Path Delay: 3ms, Doppler spread 10Hz
    Pangram Text: Quick Brown Fox



    PSK31FEC

     t e tio E ttaeH loo etee- e e e ˆyaooe n o
     ao t aeepvede n neete ueeeu .tna0 o een
    it=pctidr a ieae t e tio E ttaeH loo etee- e e 
    etˆyaooe on oe ne 6etnuEenoel o·b geogtee 



    PSK63F

    the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
    the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
    the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog

    Tony -K2MO




    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Phil Williams 
    To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 

    Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 5:16 AM
    Subject: Re: [digitalradio] IZ8BLY's PSK63F


      
    Very interesting.  What about PSKFEC31 under the same test scenarios?  
Certainly, there would be more a in throughput, but that is a matter of some 
liberal use of CW shorthand.


    philw de ka1gmn


    On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Tony <d...@optonline.net> wrote:

      
    All,

    Recent path simulation tests indicate that Nino Porcino's PSK63F offers 
    better performance over PSK31 and PSK63 in a couple of areas. The most 
    significant improvement is it's ability to endure Doppler spread found on 
    paths that cross the polar ionosphere. Both PSK31 and PSK63 fail miserably 
    in this area; see high-lat test samples below.

    Path Simulation: High Latitude (Moderate) Path Delay: 3ms, Doppler spread 
    10Hz
    Pangram Text: Quick Brown Fox

    PSK63F -- the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
    PSK63 -- mev roe tt#dtorl|f- bn ô mp e o ihe Fzy dg
    PSK31 -- nls oSer Òe naAeta qlipM h nV o T rn agâ o
    RTTY -- TH QACKH492, FOJUMP OR THTLAZY G

    Sensitivity-wise, it's quite a bit more sensitivity than PSK63, but only 
    marginally better than PSK31. Although it's speed is about 25% faster than 
    PSK31, it's about 40% slower than PSK63. Average wmp rate seems to be 63 
wpm 
    for PSK63F.

    Lowest S/N (sensitivity)

    PSK63F -12db
    PSK63 -7db
    PSK31 -11db
    RTTY -5db

    Additional path tests indicate that PSK31 and PSK63F perform about the same 
    under moderate mid-latitude conditions (CCIR fading channel). Tests show 
    that PSK31 and PSK63F will outperform PSK63 when signals are weak under 
    quiet conditions since they both have greater sensitivity.

    It would be interesting to hear from our HF digital friends up north who 
    experience the distorting effects of the polar ionosphere on a regular 
    basis; this is where the PSK63F mode can be put to the test.

    Available software:

    Nino Porcino's Stream -- http://xoomer.virgilio.it/aporcino/
    Patrick Lindeckers Multipsk -- http://f6cte.free.fr/index_anglais.htm 
    (thanks for including PSK63F Patrick)

    Tony, K2MO









  

Reply via email to