On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 07:17:29 -0800 Bob Marston <k1ta@earthlink.net>
writes:
>
>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.
On paper, yes.
And what benefit does that have to do with emergency traffic?
Emergency nets are on a single frequency and should not be competing with
each other for the same 3KHz .
I find it far more useful on SSB to be able to listen to multiple signals
at a time when trying to seperate the wannabees from the true on site
ops. On SSB it is also far easier to convey in a few syllables a sense of
urgency that may pop up at any time.
Try that on an archaic and structured CW net.
There is also a huge difference between true emergency traffic and the
personal stuff such as did Aunt Tillies Studebaker survive.
73 Carl KM1H
>
>73s
>
>Bob K1TA
>
>
>--
>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
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
--
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
|