Good point.  What you have defined , Rein,is the occupancy efficiency in
terms of time..  I was measuring efficiency in terms of bandwidth used.
Obviously the othe rmeasure is wether the message was deleivered.  Using 5
watts for a 300-400 miles trasmission on 80M at night , PSK250 may have
needed sveral repeats to send 13 chracters .  So even in term so time PSK250
may have been close to 0.001547619 .  I'll  do a test tonight.
Andy K3UK

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Rein Couperus <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> Spectrum efficiency must be measured in time necessary to get the info
> across,
> length of info transferred, and bandwidth.
> ((characters/second)/ bandwidth) or characters/(seconds * bandwidth).
> The bandwidth includes a certain guard band(minimum distance between 2
> different
> signals), which for JT65 is quite small ... but the time is a large
> factor...
>
> To give a small example:
>
> Pskmail using PSK500 ARQ has a spectrum efficiency of 23/500 = 0.046 CPS/Hz
> ... measured on 14094.0 kHz running 100 mW connected to SM0RWO (>1000Miles)
> ...
>
> The longest message in JT65 is 13 characters... and a message takes 48
> seconds..
> the bandwidth (according to the mode description) is 65 * 2.7 = 175 Hz
> ...which calculates to (13/48) / 175 = 0.001547619 CPS/Hz
>
> I would say this is a pretty bad value... :)
>
> Rein PA0R
>
>
> >Bill N9DSJ decoded two stations within 24 Hz of each other, how is
> >that for spectrum efficiency? I was transmitting 5 watts,
> >
>
> >I know many are already aware of this, but take a look
> >
> >N9DSJ-1 (EN52ti) Heard N6TE(DM12) on 3576.23 KHz -8dB at 03:32:00Z using
> JT65A
> >N9DSJ-1 (EN52ti) Heard K3UK(FN02) on 3575.99 KHz -5dB at 03:32:00Z using
> JT65A
> >
> >Bill N9DSJ decoded two stations within 24 Hz of each other, how is
> >that for spectrum efficiency? I was transmitting 5 watts,
> >
> >Andy K3UK
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html
> >Chat, Skeds, and "spots" all in one (resize to suit)Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>  
>

Reply via email to