From: Matti Aarnio <matti.aarnio@zmailer.org>
To: Haines Brown <brownh@hartford-hwp.com>
Cc: linux-hams@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: spread spectrum and broadband
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:55:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20021118115543.GD1099@mea-ext.zmailer.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200211172241.gAHMf4C31685@hartford-hwp.com>
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 05:41:04PM -0500, Haines Brown wrote:
> So I wondered about the potential of spread spectrum for increasing
> bandwidth from, say, 1200 baud to 56 Kbaud. I'd appreciate someone's
> input on the relation of information bandwidth and RF spectrum
> bandwidth when using spread spectrum. Does spread spectrum offer any
> potential at all for increasing signal bandwidth of a TCP/IP HF WAN?
In theory the best signal/power (and likely best working HF-) solution
would be M-ary-FSK. It is being used quite successfully in various
forms of QRP QSO communication, but nothing (in theory) prevents its
use for some other purposes. For a long time various forms of it
have been used in commercial RTTY-like communciations. (Piccolo, et.al.)
You _will_ need special radios, if you aim to reach for more than
3 kHz RF bandwidth.
Take 32-ary-FSK-at-100 baud:
- Send 5 bits per baud (half of them FEC, or 3/4..)
- 100 baud -> tone separation _at_least_ 100 Hz -> 3 200 Hz total BW.
- BARELY doable with SSB radio!
With that you get 500 bps datastream, of which perhaps 130 bps is
payload. There are a number of reasons why going beyond 32-ary is
probably not usefull, so your only way to increase the throughput
is to increase baud-rate --> increase total signal bandwidth.
Tradeoff (like with ary-ness increase) is in the noise-margin, and
transmitter power. At HF even 16-ary (at high speed) is tough.
If you want 32000 bps datastream with 3/4 FEC, you need around 128 000
bps raw stream, and with 16-ary (4 bit) that means around 32000 baud,
and similarly >= 32000 kHz tone separation, and >= 0.512 MHz total
bandwidth. Quite spread-spectrum already...
At microwave frequencies (up from VHF) that is no problem at all, but at
HF it is unacceptable, and likely will encounter differing propagation
delays.
Pure BPSK has troubles with HF propagation, as the phase has a tendency
to flip around in ionosphere.
> Haines Brown KG1GRM
/Matti Aarnio, OH1MQK
prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-11-18 11:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-11-17 22:41 spread spectrum and broadband Haines Brown
2002-11-18 11:22 ` Pär
2002-11-18 11:55 ` Matti Aarnio [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20021118115543.GD1099@mea-ext.zmailer.org \
--to=matti.aarnio@zmailer.org \
--cc=brownh@hartford-hwp.com \
--cc=linux-hams@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox