Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+CW\s+works\s+better\!\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+CW\s+works\s+better\!\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] CW works better! (score: 1): Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett); Date: Thu Jul 18 14:35:04 2002; K4OJ: isn't a better node! This is also true on the low bands. Proof - compare alltime SOSB records for CW vs SSB on 160-40 in the CQ WW records here: http://www.cqww.com/intro.htm CW and SSB weekend; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-07/msg00220.html (8,150 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] CW works better! (score: 1): Author: geoiii@kkn.net (George Fremin III - K5TR); Date: Thu Jul 18 09:03:46 2002; While I will not dispute that CW does better in getting through the noise on these bands - I think that more of the score diffrences can be attributed to these problems: - Lack of ssb frequency align; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-07/msg00223.html (8,561 bytes)
3. [CQ-Contest] CW works better! (score: 1): Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett); Date: Thu Jul 18 17:40:16 2002; Hi George! through the noise on these bands - I think that more of the score diffrences can be attributed to these problems: 1 - Lack of ssb frequency alignment on the low bands. This forces the use; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-07/msg00230.html (9,335 bytes)
4. [CQ-Contest] CW works better! (score: 1): Author: aa4lr@arrl.net (Bill Coleman); Date: Mon Aug 5 00:35:55 2002; Technically, you're incorrect. Human-read CW signals are limited by being audible above the noise. Certain digital modes can greatly exceed that capability. N4HY and W3IWI did experiments back in the; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-08/msg00044.html (8,304 bytes)
5. [CQ-Contest] CW works better! (score: 1): Author: aa4lr@arrl.net (Bill Coleman); Date: Mon Aug 5 00:36:03 2002; I've seen this argument so many times, I'm somewhat sick of it. It is a good technical point. My question is -- why is it only applied to SSB? Wouldn't this operation also be beneficial for CW? Of co; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-08/msg00045.html (9,791 bytes)
6. [CQ-Contest] CW works better! (score: 1): Author: w7ti@dslextreme.com (Bill Turner); Date: Mon Aug 5 10:06:56 2002; _________________________________________________________ That's a good question. Does anyone know the details of their transmissions? I understand there is some very advanced signal processing, but; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-08/msg00051.html (6,849 bytes)
7. [CQ-Contest] CW works better! (score: 1): Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett); Date: Mon Aug 5 17:50:47 2002; Under extreme contest conditions on any band, CW rules! Why is this so? The answer is very simple...noise bandwidth. On the low bands, noise tends to increase as you move down in frequency. This is d; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-08/msg00053.html (10,808 bytes)
8. [CQ-Contest] CW works better! (score: 1): Author: aa4lr@arrl.net (Bill Coleman); Date: Tue Aug 6 21:56:20 2002; Does it? That's an open question. [ Sound reasons removed ] This is essentially Shannon's law. (Actually, the law takes into account both the bandwidth and the threshold above noise -- the total area; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-08/msg00099.html (8,684 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]