Hi Mike, I beg to differ on that, the slow transmissions have a valid reason to be so slow, they are working statistics to make a contact with the lowest power possible... Does ESSB take less power? Does it allow for very weak signals reception... No...
It is there because someone thinks it is cool... Nothing more. It is not innovative, nor does it have any engineering reason for existing on HF. All it takes is an equalizer. Using slow CW is clever approach to a problem, it lets one make a contact where one would not be possible, ESSB does just the opposite... Given the same band conditions, the restricted BW signal will outperform the ESSB signal every time. It was after all a supporter of ESSB that said it was just fun... Is that really it? It's just cool? -- Thanks and 73's, For equipment, and software setups and reviews see: www.nk7z.net for MixW support see; http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mixw/info for Dopplergram information see: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dopplergram/info for MM-SSTV see: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MM-SSTV/info On Sun, 2014-04-27 at 22:32 -0600, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote: > For the same reason that people are trying to make qso's on 160 using > some type of incredibly slow transmission mode that appears to most as > local qrm. Because you can, doesn't mean you should. > > Mike W0MU > > On 4/27/2014 10:26 PM, David Cole wrote: > > Milverton, > > Respectfully, your reply does not answer the question-- is there really > > a need for ESSB? > > > > Your answer merely introduces a totally different argument into this > > discussion, (the legal argument), while using my question as a launching > > point for a subject change. I am not asking about if it is legal, I am > > asking why do it at all? Is this really to use an ESSB supporters own > > words, "...other hams having fun..."? > > > > The legal issue will sort itself out. If ESSB does not have it's own > > emission definition, (one accepted by the FCC), and is classed with SSB, > > then it is not legal. This conclusion on my part is based on Part > > 97.307(a), again, this assumes that ESSB and SSB have the same emission > > designation as per the FCC. > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to d...@nk7z.net ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
