RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] FSK is bad?

To: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] FSK is bad?
From: Stanley Zawrotny <k4sbz.stan@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 12:10:21 -0400
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
How could the PSK and JT people change their bandwidths? It seems to come with 
the mode.

Stan, K4SBZ

"Real radio bounces off the sky."

> On Oct 25, 2016, at 1:58 AM, Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> ------------ ORIGINAL MESSAGE ------------(may be snipped)
> 
>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:04:59 -0400, W4TV wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> PSK31 and JT65/JT9 operators have been browbeaten to keep their power
>> levels very low - many of the "thought police" claim anything more than
>> 5W is intentional interference - while the normal RTTY operator will
>> run his full transmitter output. 
> 
> REPLY:
> 
> It should be pointed out that this pressure to use only low power has
> nothing to do with the mode, but rather the wide bandwidth at the
> receiver end to enable the "waterfall" display which people seem to
> love. Just one strong signal anywhere in the receiver bandwidth will
> cause the receiver's ALC to crank down the gain for everybody. 
> 
> By contrast, RTTY operators traditionally use a very narrow receive
> bandwidth to begin with and the ALC issue no longer exists and high
> power is the rule. 
> 
> It would be interesting to see how much more DX the PSK and JT mode
> ops could work if they used very narrow bandwidths and high power. I'm
> not holding my breath on that, however. 
> 
> 73, Bill W6WRT
> 
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>