Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

[AMPS] Re: SERIOUS commentary from N4XY on "no-code" and "bounced" subm

To: <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: [AMPS] Re: SERIOUS commentary from N4XY on "no-code" and "bounced" submission to [CW] from Bob Marston, K1TA [LONG] but please read all
From: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 08:15:23 -0800


>
>At 11:15 AM 1/28/99 -0000, Peter Chadwick wrote:
>>
>>>Given the fact that cw is far more spectrum efficient 
>>
>>It isn't. Spectrum efficiency is bits/Hz.
>>
>>HF packet is about 0.1 bits/Hz. HF CW  is about 10bits/sec, and needs about
>>50Hz to allow for fading etc, so is about 0.2 bits/Hz. Analogue speech is
>>often reckoned as about 2 bits/Hz.
>>
>>CW is inherently narrow band, not spectrally efficient.
>>
>
>OK Point Taken...But that still doesn't change my arguement...What I meant
>to convey is that far more cw signals can be accomodated in the same
>frequency spectrum as SSB signals.
>
?    However, voice communication proceeds at around 250wpm and cw at 
maybe 25wpm.  It seems to me that for contesting, cw is better


Rich...

R. L. Measures, 805-386-3734, AG6K, www.vcnet.com/measures  


--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>