Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

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

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 pleaseread all
From: andywallace@home.com (Andy Wallace)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:05:28 -0600
Except for the relatively rare times when major CW contests are going on, the CW
portions of all ham bands are virtually empty, including 20m.

Andy  K5VM

Bob Marston wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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




--
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>