Bonnie, Agree completely. It makes little sense to give AM such special treatment at the expense of shutting down future digital technical developments on HF.
Power masking! Very interesting approach to a solution for the dilemma. The HSMM WG still has one final report to submit by the EOY. Perhaps John, KD6OZH, may wish to modify his / our original recommendation to the Board to include this concept. John, what say you? Thanks! John - K8OCL >From: "expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Wider Bandwidths and Frequency Choices Needed >in Future >Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:12:04 -0000 > > > John K8OCL wrote: > > The ARRL HSMM Working Group recommended at least the same > > bandwidth for HF digital research and advancement as the > > current ARRL bandplan recommended for a old legacy mode > > such as AM. > >Hi John, > >There is really no sensible reason that AM should get special >treatment in a bandwidth-based spectrum management plan. Especially, >when bandwidth-based definitions may be used to allow AM on par with >other emission types. > >In 2005, I suggested the use of a power/bandwidth mask that would >accomodate AM, as well as provide for other emissions at wider >bandwidth, but with similar spectrum use impact as AM... >See this image: >http://www.hflink.com/bandplans/spectrum_mask.jpg > >Basically, the power mask definition principle is simple... >If transmitter necessary bandwidth exceeds 3kHz, then: >Power must not exceed 1500W PEP in 3.5kHz occupied bandwidth, >and power must not exceed 200W PEP in 10kHz occupied bandwidth. > >So, when necessary bandwidth doesn't exceed 3kHz, there is no need for >the operator to measure or calculate bandwidth. It is only when wider >bandwidth is used, that it puts the responsibility upon the operator >to control power vs bandwidth according to the stepped power mask. > >Just think about the kB/s throughput you could deliver with a stepped >power 200W/1.5kW OFDM signal within this mask! Or, alternatively, a >flat response signal with 10kHz bandwidth at 200W. Using time-share >techniques, there are a lot of interesting new things that could be >done. Certainly, there is enough spectrum space to carve out 50kHz of >spectrum for this in the 80m, 15m, and 10m bands for this. > >On the 20m and 40m bands, with a small chunk, maybe 20kHz of spectrum >could be used, and a slightly lower-powered mask could be defined: > >100W @ 3.5kHz Occupied Bandwidth >20W @ 10kHz Occupied Bandwidth > >Certainly, this would have less spectrum impact than the kilowatt AM >phone signal that everyone knows and loves so much. > >Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
