At 05:02 PM 2/7/2010, you wrote:
With the long qsb faded outs on 500 Khz 60 seconds '
in' 20 'out sort of thing arq is the only way of having a qso ..
but most of the EU stations are limited to 100 Hz b/w ..
How do you deal with a limit like that?
, WØJAB
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 10:18 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Performance of modes: weak signal and poor
ionospheric conditions
At 05:02 PM 2/7/2010, you wrote:
With the long qsb faded outs on 500 Khz 60 seconds '
in' 20 'out sort of thing
graham787 wrote:
.. but most of the EU stations are limited to 100 Hz b/w ..
Sorry, I may be missing something here, but which EU stations are
limited to 100Hz bandwidth, and why?
Dave (G0DJA)
Ok thanks for that .. will give it a try
G ..
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, vk2eta vk2...@... wrote:
John,
With Fldigi as modem you can use Psk63 and maybe (untested) psk63FEC for more
robustness but about 1/2 the speed of psk63.
73s,
John
--- In
Ok John well its in the translation of telegraphy ... the 100 Hz limit
(on 500KHz) was intended to produce CW operation only .. however when the
definition was 're vistited' after the band was allocated (inside europe ..
not the uk) .. data under 100 Hz also fitted the
...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of John Becker, WØJAB
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 10:18 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Performance of modes: weak signal and poor
ionospheric conditions
At 05:02 PM 2/7/2010, you wrote:
With the long qsb faded outs on 500 Khz
graham787 wrote:
Ok John ... EU 500 Khz allocation that is (appart from SM) most seem to
have a 100 Hz tx limit the Uk has 501504 with no defined BW appart from
the expected 'dont interfear'and no talking .. SM allows ssb as well
The idea of 'Don't interfere' is
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@... wrote:
graham787 wrote:
Ok John ... EU 500 Khz allocation that is (appart from SM) most seem to
have a 100 Hz tx limit the Uk has 501504 with no defined BW appart
from the expected 'dont interfear' and no talking
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB w0...@... wrote:
At 10:40 PM 2/1/2010, you wrote in part:
but some of the other ARQ protocals I've played with look like a mess when
you're a station on the outside looking in...
I have never found that to be true with PACTOR or
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB w0...@... wrote:
At 10:40 PM 2/1/2010, you wrote in part:
but some of the other ARQ protocals I've played with look like a mess when
you're a station on the outside looking in...
I have never found that to be true with PACTOR or
At 10:40 PM 2/1/2010, you wrote in part:
but some of the other ARQ protocals I've played with look like a mess when
you're a station on the outside looking in...
I have never found that to be true with PACTOR or AMTOR.
Can't speak for the sound card ARQ modes.
@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 11:40 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Performance of modes: weak signal and poor
ionospheric conditions
I'm pretty darn happy with the performance of Olivia without the added
complexity of ARQ and the one on one aspect of the ARQ protocals.
I'm not sure
I'm pretty darn happy with the performance of Olivia without the added
complexity of ARQ and the one on one aspect of the ARQ protocals.
I'm not sure about pskmail arq chat mode, but some of the other ARQ protocals
I've played with look like a mess when you're a station on the outside looking
, February 01, 2010 11:40 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Performance of modes: weak signal and poor
ionospheric conditions
I'm pretty darn happy with the performance of Olivia without the added
complexity of ARQ and the one on one aspect of the ARQ protocals.
I'm not sure about pskmail arq chat mode
MFSK16 always seems to come up near or at the top of the simulated tests but I
can't duplicate that in the real world.
My experience is that Olivia 8/500 does as well if not better and gives MUCH
greater latitude in tuning while still providing 100% copy under moderate to
poor conditions.
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 4:00 PM, kb3fxi kb3...@yahoo.com wrote:
MFSK16 always seems to come up near or at the top of the simulated tests
but I can't duplicate that in the real world.
My experience is that Olivia 8/500 does as well if not better and gives
MUCH greater latitude in tuning
16 matches
Mail list logo
