Joe - > Do you think we may need to use > different erasure probabilities for HF and EME-like conditions?
Sorry, I didn’t answer this question. Working in between appts and meetings here. My aim is to come up with erasure probabilities that will work reasonably well for both situations and, if any compromise needs to be made - to compromise on the hf side and preserve eme performance. Though I don’t know that we have established that the gaussian-noise-no-fading (gnnf) case is a good representation of eme conditions. In any case, you can see that the differences between the gnnf and hf erasure probabilities are not too big. The next step, perhaps, would be to produce a new matrix that is the weighted average of the gnnf and hf matrices, with the weighting factor being the number of symbols represented in each cell. But first, I feel like we need to settle on a candidate-selection-scheme and, to the extent that it is possible, minimize the number of “spurious” vectors. One thing that I noticed about the current scheme is that it does not reject based on SNR which, it appears, is based on the final tweaked-up sync2 value. I wonder how many vectors could be rejected if we just set a lower snr threshold. Of course, that problem does not seem to be the central problem with the current scheme. It’s just not finding all of the good candidates. Steve k9an ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
