Once upon a time they called that 'coherent' cw. I started looking into
it and saw the dreadful results. I wrote it off as quite impractical
away back then. It was not only terribly slow but relied on somebody
else's transmitter, not even the other ham, to make the whole thing
work. Like the gps 'disciplined' timebases used for that nonsense today.
Sure it gets some kind of results. But none that are actually useful -
beyond amusing some radio experimenters. They have been experimenting
for quite a while now and it hasn't improved any. I'm hoping they'll get
it to the point of useable but it isn't looking good. They really do
have to transmit all night and all they get across is their ID and maybe
their location.
When I want to order a pizza I would like to have it today.
73,
Bill kU8H
On 03/31/2014 12:35 PM, Mike Waters wrote:
That's interesting, and brings to mind a question I've been wondering about
for low-data-rate weak signal modes such as JT65, JT9 (which take 60
seconds to send a CQ), and QRSS (24 hours?!).
In the real world on 160, what would any of these modes really gain for an
operator already skilled in CW?
>From reading posts about JT9 and JT65 on 160, the distance gain over
ordinary CW is really nothing to write home about. Does anyone have any
real-word experiences that say otherwise?
73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Lee K7TJR <k7tjr@msn.com> wrote:
... the carrier on 1810.8 KHz has been found. ... a ham running QRSS
where it takes 24 hours to send a CQ. HuH?
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|