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: | k1ta@earthlink.net (Bob Marston) |
Date: | Thu, 28 Jan 1999 07:17:29 -0800 |
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 |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | [AMPS] ARRL and QST (and CW Relevance), Tony Martin |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [AMPS] ARRL and QST (and CW Relevance), dan hearn |
Previous by Thread: | [AMPS] Re: SERIOUS commentary from N4XY on "no-code" and "bounced" submission to [CW] from Bob Marston, K1TA [LONG] but please read all, Peter Chadwick |
Next by Thread: | [AMPS] Re: SERIOUS commentary from N4XY on "no-code" and"bounced" submission to [CW] from Bob Marston, K1TA [LONG] but pleaseread all, Andy Wallace |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |