> have all been developed under the current bandwidth "limitations."
That's part of the problem. Without these limitations we can realize
modes nobody thought of till today.
> Co-existance has not been "proven in the rest of the world" as use
> of wider modes has been limited by the number of licensees in the
> rest of the world
Nonsense. Ham density in many countries is much higher than in the
US. Even more when taken into account that most technicians are
active on VHF/UHF only.
> Winlink and PACTOR III/IV are a blight on amateur radio and should
This all seems to be a private campaign of a few against Winlink/Pactor rather
than supporting the future of ham radio.
This proposal was well defined by experts from ARRL with a more global
future oriented view helping experimenters to develop new modes.
That's ham radio!
Support our league, guys.
Stan
_________________________________________________________
On Nov 25, 2013, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> It will just open the door to experiment and develop new modes -
> this is ham radio.
The door is not closed to developing new modes. The most popular of
new modes, PSK31, JT65, JT9, and WSPR have all been developed under
the current bandwidth "limitations."
> And the co-existance has been proven in the rest of the ham world
> where this is allowed since many years.
Co-existance has not been "proven in the rest of the world" as use
of wider modes has been limited by the number of licensees in the
rest of the world and the general lack of significant usage for these
bandwidth hogging commercial traffic systems anywhere except the
automatic control sub-bands.
Winlink and PACTOR III/IV are a blight on amateur radio and should
be made illegal in the same way as bandwidth wasting spark was made
illegal in the 1920s.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 11/25/2013 4:11 AM, Stan wrote:
> Just for the records,
>
> If you won't follow the arguments of those 'experts' - you are also welcome to
> file a comment that you are perfectly fine with the proposal from our league.
>
> There're always naysayers but SSB was not the end of ham radio - the Internet
> was not the end of ham radio - 2.8kHz bandwidth will not be the end of RTTY.
>
> It will just open the door to experiment and develop new modes - this is ham
> radio.
>
> And the co-existance has been proven in the rest of the ham world where this
> is allowed since many years.
>
> Stan
>
>
>
> On Nov 24, 2013, at 5:02 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>
> > PACTOR III is *NOT* currently permitted under the rules. Its use has
> > been *overlooked* by enforcement organizations as it *absolutely* can
> > not be justified under the *dual standard* in 97.307(f)(3) which has
> > both 300 baud and 1000 Hz shift limits.
>
> That is not true Joe... please don't make that mistake in your FCC filing.
>
> At all SL levels, Pactor III's symbol rate is fixed at 100 baud (yes, not
> even close to 300 baud). (Don't confuse Symbol Rate (baud rate) with data
> rate (bit rate)).
>
> Pactor III is not 2 tone FSK, so the FSK shift rule does not even apply
> (makes no technical sense since there is no frequency shift happening).
>
> Pactor 3 SL1 (the slowest rate) consists of two synchronous PSK signals
> (not FSK), that are separated by 840 Hz. 840 Hz is the maximum tone
> separation for Pactor 3 (if you want to apply the term "shift" to the
> signal). As more tones are added (SL2, SL3, etc), the tone separations become
> narrow, and at the narrowest, there are 18 tones, separated by 120 Hz from
> one another.
>
> Pactor 3 SL1, 2 and 3 uses binary PSK, and Pactor 3 SL4, 5, 6 uses
> Quadrature PSK.
>
> It is much clearer if you go take a look with a panadapter or a waterfall,
> or if you can, in I/Q phase space.
>
> Pactor 3 SL1 looks like two broad indistinct tones that are 840 Hz from one
> another, with a distinctive gap in between them. It is quite unmistakable
> once you see it on the waterfall.
>
> 73
> Chen, W7AY
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|