Chen,
That's a good approach. Now the tricky part.
Can you/we now craft an argument that increasing that limit from the defacto
2200 Hz is harmful to current users? That argument must survive things like 2800
enables important ecomm modes.
73
Kai, KE4PT
On 11/26/2013 10:03 PM, Kok Chen wrote:
On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:35 PM, Kai wrote:
Pick a number between 2.2 and 2.8 kHz,
argue for the number by providing evidence that anything higher than your
number causes grievous harm to current user.
I am leaning towards 2200 Hz since any device that is legal today will still be
legal tomorrow, and the amount of mutual QRM we get today today will still be
the amount of mutual QRM tomorrow.
So we'll let people innovate through the relaxation of symbol rate limit, as
the ARRL purportedly wishes.
For the same modulation and FEC/encoding scheme, the most 2800 Hz can do over
2200 Hz is 27% better throughput (data rate), and only if you also increase
power. Eb/No of a mode is always going to rule, not lawyers and not the ARRL.
73
Chen, W7AY
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|