On Jun 6, 2006, at 11:33 PM, Tom Osborne wrote:
> I think there is a lot of difference between S9 noise and very few
> signals,
> and 3 signals crammed into a 600 cycle portion of the spectrum I
> don't see
> what this had to do with what Dave said.
Perhaps the example was poor, but the point is still valid.
What makes a frequency "good"? Dave implied that it depends on how
interference-free the channel was. My point was that a frequency is
only "good" if it produces rate. I've found many clear frequencies
that I've abandoned because they weren't producing.
Similarly, if I've been running on a frequency that is producing a
good rate, and adjacent QRM moves in -- I'm not going to move unless
the rate suffers. So, I might stay on a "bad" sounding frequency as
long as it keeps producing.
The two concepts are definitely related. A channel with raging QRM
makes it difficult or impossible to hear weak respondents. You might
not plop down on a frequency with as much QRM as you might tolerate
if you've been there a while. And what you really care about isn't so
much the QRM level you hear, but the QRM that stations in the target
area hear around you.
I still submit that rate is the definitive measure. QRM at either end
has the potential to affect rate, but it may not.
Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|