Well I can't hear a CW signal at a -5 dB SNR.  Can you?  But I don't think  
minus teens...but that is what some of the newer PSK modes claim.

The only thing that will really kill or stop Pactor is excessive amounts of 
doppler or until the detector can no longer decode the signal.

You are actually making a case for RF footprinting.  You want to see what the 
throughput is for bandwidth unit.  We could measure it in Hz or KHz.   20 cps 
at 1 KHz is .04 cps/Hz (MT63-1K RAW).   5 cps at 100 Hz is also 4.5 cps is 
.05625 cps/Hz (PSK31).  But when decoded, MT63 is almost 100% error free and 
PSK31 can have up to 10% errors.

So it not all just about throughput, its about the overall robustness of the 
mode to include your requirement for how much error free copy you want.  You 
are going to get many few errors with Pactor III than PSK31.  If you used ARQ 
and something else to to the the BER of PACTOR III, you might find that the 
throughput was less than 5 cps.

Walt/K5YFW  

-----Original Message-----
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of KV9U
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 2:31 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor versus Olivia


While this information does not seem to support the SCS claim of working 
way down to the minus teens of db S/N, it is interesting that in the 
"old days" Pactor 1 users claimed that they could get throughput when 
they could not even hear any suggestion of modulation.

I never found this to be true,  but then I never had any SCS products 
either. Having an SCS Pactor 1 modem on each end of a connection was 
supposed to work much better than with mixed or other brands of modems. 
Particularly because of the ability to do memory ARQ.

One thing that seems to escape Pactor 3 users, is that even though it 
might work 3 to 5 times faster than Pactor 2, the bandwidth is about 4 
or 5 times wider so there is no real benefit if you are comparing 
occupied space to bandwidth.

Sharing a finite and non-channelized service such as we radio amateurs 
use, having many small bandwidth users means more throughput for more 
users than one large bandwidth user at a time.

73,

Rick, KV9U





DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:

>If you looked at the PDF document of KN6KB's measurements, that is what is 
>showes.
>
>The only difference between Pactor I, II and III is the throughput 
>(NetByte/minute) at various SNRs.
>
>I can only assume that the BER or percent of errors ( zero errors?) was also 
>the same.
>
>PIII           +10 dB SNR              +5 dB SNR               0 dB SNR        
>        -5 dB SNR
>Throughput     11,500 NB/min   9,000 NB/min    4,000 NB/min    200-300 NB/min
>PII
>Throughput     3,200 NB/min    2,500 NB/min    1,800 NB/min    200-300 NB/min
>PI
>Throughput      900 NB/min              900 NB/min              600 NB/min     
>        100 NB/min
>
>All these are what I see on KN6KB's chart.
>
>At each of the above SNRs the Pactor mode has a shown throughput.
>
>If need 9,000 NB/min at a +5 dB SNR, then you need Pactor III.  But if you 
>only need a maximum throughput of 800 NB/min at +5 dB SNR, then you only need 
>Pactor I.
>
>Walt/K5YFW
>
>  
>




Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Our other groups:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links



Reply via email to