Tom & QRQers,
If QRQ operation would be affected by the proposed "segregate by
bandwidth" rules, this needs to go to the ARRL directors and
management. And I suggest you contact all the QRQers out there to do
the same. I think your constructive comments will be heard.
The figures show that there are problems with some of the rigs that
don't shape QRQ CW properly -- particularly the Yaesu. I don't think
you're saying that it's a good thing that the Mk V Field occupies 500
Hz at 60 wpm, especially if the Orion is so much better. When we use
advanced radios with real 100-200 Hz selectivity, a (clicky?) 500 Hz
signal in the CW bands gets noticed, especially if he is also QRO.
I wouldn't write the regs to suit the badly behaved rigs out there.
If the Orion has the optimum engineering for QRQ (not sure about
that!), then maybe the new regs should use 250 Hz as the cutoff for
low-bandwidth operation.
By the way, how should CW bandwidth be measured? A string of dits is
not a normal signal. Normal text might be much better on average at
the -26 dB points. If you average over 30 seconds, including letter
and word breaks, the numbers will be even better.
As a new QRS FISTS member, I salute the QRQers who send & receive the
old-fashioned way. On the other hand if you're doing QRQ with
keyboard & software, I'm not sure why it shouldn't be treated like
PSK63 or other digital modes.
73 Martin AA6E
On 6/15/05, Tommy <aldermant@alltel.net> wrote:
> By permission, I am posting this to the Orion reflector because it pertains
> directly to this radio, among others. Like myself, I would guess that many
> of us do not pay serious attention to what the ARRL is doing, or in this
> case, proposing to the FCC. But this bit of information is one reason that
> think that maybe we SHOULD pay attention to what they are doing!
_______________________________________________
Orion mailing list
Orion@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/orion
|