[AMPS] Re: SERIOUS commentary from N4XY on "no-code" and "bounced" submission to [CW] from Bob Marston, K1TA [LONG] but please read all

[Rich Measures]

>
>
>
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 08:15:23 -0800 Rich Measures <measures@vc.net>
>writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>At 11:15 AM 1/28/99 -0000, Peter Chadwick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Given the fact that cw is far more spectrum efficient 
>>>>
>>>>It isn't. Spectrum efficiency is bits/Hz.
>>>>
>>>>HF packet is about 0.1 bits/Hz. HF CW  is about 10bits/sec, and 
>>needs about
>>>>50Hz to allow for fading etc, so is about 0.2 bits/Hz. Analogue 
>>speech is
>>>>often reckoned as about 2 bits/Hz.
>>>>
>>>>CW is inherently narrow band, not spectrally efficient.
>>>>
>>>
>>>OK Point Taken...But that still doesn't change my arguement...What I 
>>meant
>>>to convey is that far more cw signals can be accomodated in the same
>>>frequency spectrum as SSB signals.
>>>
>>Ä    However, voice communication proceeds at around 250wpm and cw at 
>>maybe 25wpm.  It seems to me that for contesting, cw is better
>
>
>Top Gun SSB contesters have much higher Q rates than CW counterparts. 
>Fact, not fiction.
>
€  A contest of skill, Carl.   Machine guns are a no-no in skeet shooting 
contests.  



Rich...

R. L. Measures, 805-386-3734, AG6K, www.vcnet.com/measures  


--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm