--- Bill Fuqua <wlfuqu00@uky.edu> wrote:
> With easing up on the requirements to get a HF license. It is becoming
> more and more difficult to find a spot to operate. Some would interpret
> 6KHz bandwidth limit for SSB to mean that splatter is acceptable. 3 Khz is
> sufficient band width to communicate by voice. In fact telephones have been
> built using the 300 to 3000 Hz band width ( or there about) as being
> sufficient for all voices but
> perhaps not music.
Problem is that most clowns (including a few here, I'm sure) don't know to
properly use their
amps, so a 2.4 kHz audio passband easily becomes 10 kHz or more. Now tell me
how "bad" a properly
run 4 or even 6 kHz SSB signal is compared to the slop bucket crap you hear on
the bands.
> 6 kHz on SSB would be greater audio bandwidth than used for standard
> AM broadcast (5kHz). Which was adopted to accommodate music broadcast.
> The other side to using 6kHz for SSB in particular on the receiving end
> would require twice the transmitted power to accomplish the same signal to
> noise as compared to 3khz. And 3 times the tx power than when using 2kHz.
> So the minimum power rule enters in as well.
> Using twice the bandwidth than necessary just does not make sense.
That's being totally hypocritical. How often do you turn down your TX power to
the "minimum
necessary"?? I don't know anyone that uses their 100W rig at 10W (besides
QRP'ers) and only turn
it up when they need it. This **IS** the Amps Reflector, is it not? I've
NEVER had to double my
power when switching to 5 or 6k mode.
> What I don't understand is the use of independent sideband. What does
> ISB have to do with ham radio. It was used for long distance phone
> communications before undersea cables and satellites to either transmit two
> or more channels or for secure transmissions. Are we going to transmit
> stereo? If so it seems to be a waste of bandwidth.
Think beyond today, man. We're talking about digital modes that don't exist
today. This whole
retructuring is supposed to carry us into the next 20 years and there will be
new technology that
will require ISB.
> Also, mixing automated digital modes and voice or manual CW is a bad
> mistake. For example a PSK 31 station observing a CW station would perhaps
> think that he is not going to interfere with it and go ahead and transmit
> only 50 or 100 Hz from the CW stations frequency. Or a CW station may think
> that a PSK31 station was just a birdie or some other obnoxious signal that
> was not a ham station if he did not have a means of monitoring (a computer
> and such). You can hear the modulation on a PSK31 signal if you have
> sufficient signal strength. But other wise it may just sound like some
> other spurious signal produced by the numerous microcontrollers in the
> neighborhood.
> The accepted minimum bandwidth for CW 3 times the dit rate (2.5 times
> WPM= Hz bandwidth) the word rate. The theoretical limit is actually the
> dit rate but it is difficult to copy with out using a computer at that
> narrow of a bandwidth (this is easy to prove mathematically). So 11 or 12
> WPM would take up the space of 1 PSK31 signal if we limited the rise and
> fall time of the transmitter to what would be necessary. Or if you used a
> computer to copy, the speed of OOK (CW) could be raised to over 20 wpm but
> to limit the TX bandwidth to the real bandwidth limit would require more
> than a key click filter. Just limiting the rise and fall times to some
> value will not do it. This is another story entirely. You might call it
> SSBCW with Carrier.
Excellent point. If you are SOOO concerned about BW, stay off voice. CW/PSK
is plenty good
enough to get the message heard.
>
> My fear is that if we persist in setting HARD limits in bandwidth and
> such we will finally end up with the HF bands defined as channels (like
> 60meters) and require everyone to use "Standardize radio equipment". This
> would prevent lots of experimentation and learning by young and old ham. I
> would like one change, after giving it much thought. That is, to allow HF
> amplifiers to be manufactured that can be driven by low power
> transmitters. This allows QRP operators/experimenters to easily purchase
> QRO equipment. It is OK as long as there are provisions for not allowing
> amplifiers to be sold to non-HF-hams.
I think that's the last thing any of us want. Like I said earlier, be careful
what you ask for.
>
> 73
> Bill wa4lav
>
>
>
> At 12:02 PM 8/26/2004 -0700, Joe Isabella wrote:
> >Apparently, I'm one of "these morons". However, be careful not to cast
> >stones when you live in a
> >glass house, because "Bassiness" has nothing to do with the extended
> >BW. Only the high
> >frequencies take up the extra amount between 3 and 6 kHz. I run out to 6k
> >sometimes, but only
> >when there is enough space. I'll continue to use my bottom end even if I
> >only run out to 3.2kHz
> >or so.
> >
> >One other thing to keep in mind is that these rules only affect the
> >US. There are many Canadians
> >running 6k SSB (hence my moving to Canada comment), so don't expect all
> >the 6k SSB to miraculously
> >disappear. Their gov't allows 6k in the voice spectrum which is
> >plenty. I don't understand why
> >we have to put such strict limits on it.
> >
> >Oh well -- I guess I'll keep on using AM at 9 kHz of bandwidth all the
> >time istead of the 4 to 6
> >kHz that I would normally have been running on SSB. Be careful what you
> >ask for.
> >
> >Joe,
> >N3JI
> >
> >--- "Steven Grant, W4IIV" <stevengrant98@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > the reason they are doing this is because some folks love to have very
> > bassey audio. thier egos
> > > say that they must have broadcast quality audio.
> > > i dont think they will do away with AM or 10m FM
> > > i do believe that they need to limit SSB widths cause some of these
> > "morons" insist on taking up
> > > bandwidth with a 5kc wide SSB signal
> > > steven, W4IIV
> > >
> > > "R.Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Aug 25, 2004, at 1:12 PM, Joe Isabella wrote:
> > >
> > > > Prezactly... Except that it allows wider digital modes in the "CW"
> > > > bands, and it limits SSB Voice
> > > > to 3 kHz. I'm not a big fan of this move by the League -- seems silly
> > > > to put these limits in
> > > > place on voice. I think I'll move to Canada...eh??
> > > >
> > > Joe -- Letting the amateur radio community determine how a band is used
> > > has worked well enough on 160m. The vast CW wasteland presently on 80m
> > > is a good example of bad rule-making.
> > > end
> > >
> > > > Joe
> > > >
> > > > --- Vic Rosenthal wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> R.Measures wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Thanks, Joe. So this means that if adopted, 10m FM as well as AM
> > > >>> will
> > > >>> be illegal.
> > > >>
> > > >> The bandwidth allowed in 29.0 - 29.7 MHz is 16 KHz.
> > > >>
> > > >> There is a specific provision to allow DSB AM in the 3 KHz areas:
> > > >>
> > > >> "(1) The 3 kHz maximum bandwidth does not apply to double-sideband
> > > >> amplitude-modulated phone A3E emissions which are limited to --26 dB
> > > >> bandwidths of 9 kHz."
> > > >>
> > > >> You can read the whole thing at:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> It's not going to make any revolutionary changes.
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> 73,
> > > >> Vic, K2VCO
> > > >> Fresno CA
> > > >> http://www.qsl.net/k2vco
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Amps mailing list
> > > >> Amps@contesting.com
> > > >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
> > > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Amps mailing list
> > > > Amps@contesting.com
> > > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Richard L. Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734. www.somis.org
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Amps mailing list
> > > Amps@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > STEVEN GRANT W4IIV
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Amps mailing list
> > > Amps@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
> >http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
> >_______________________________________________
> >Amps mailing list
> >Amps@contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|