[pskmail] Re: Speed measurements
- From: Pär Crusefalk <per@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pskmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:30:17 +0100
Hi Rein,
Been too busy to take the time to digest this data. But now I'm relaxing
at work... so I'm having a quick look at it.
>From the data its obvious that the SNR was excellent and static crashes
and other QRM was not a factor. Its great to have this data and I think
we should treat it as a measure of the top performance of these modes.
I mean, the robust modes are abt 30-40% slower than the raw ones. If the
path had caused trouble then the raw mode speed should have been closer
to the robust. Or, was there QRM and the raw modes are just performing
really well?
I'd like to add this to the table, real data is always best.
73 de Per, sm0rwo
ons 2010-01-27 klockan 14:28 +0100 skrev Rein Couperus:
> Here are the results of today's speed measurements...
>
> method: download a web page (http://pskmail.wikispaces.com/overview)
> containing 10 kB of text via
> PI4TUE on 10147 and 18105 kHz over a 20km path.
> The figures are net throughput of the file including compression and arq
> overhead.
> These are max. values, there was no qrm, qsb or qrn. The time was measured
> from requesting the page to showing in the terminal.
>
> Mode seconds chars/second wpm
> ============================
> PSK500 236 42 504
> PSK500R 349 28.6 343
> PSK250 360 27.7 332
> PSK250R 567 17.6 212
> MFSK32 1092 9.1 109
> PSK125R 1130 8.8 105
> THOR22 1452 6.9 83
>
> (wpm = 5-char words/minute)
>
> 73,
>
> Rein PA0R --
> http://pa0r.blogspirit.com
>
Other related posts:
