Is there an amplifier "tie-in" to this discussion that we've missed?
-Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Wallace <andywallace@home.com>
To: Bob Marston <k1ta@earthlink.net>
Cc: Peter Chadwick <Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com>; 'amps' <amps@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [AMPS] Re: SERIOUS commentary from N4XY on "no-code" and
"bounced" submission to [CW] from Bob Marston, K1TA [LONG] but please read
all
>
>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
>
>
--
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
|