In a message dated 8/12/07 12:32:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Why can't I run FM voice that's 15 or 20 kHz wide on 75 meters? I think it > > would sound really, really good. Much better than even AM, and >immune to summer > > > QRN. The transmitter would be very efficient, modulated at low level and > > amplified in highly efficient Class E stages that are very simple and > don't have to > > be amplitude-linear at all. I'd be experimenting with new things. > > Marvelous idea...logical too...and flies in the face of operating > efficiently. How so? The transmitter would be more efficient. If it's OK to use 6 to 9 kHz for ESSB, why not 15 or 20 kHz for FM? > But, that notwithstanding, with limited spectrum space available, even > after the > expansion of the phone bands, why are we considering reducing the number of > channels available, by increasing the bandwidth? I like how 15-20 kHz wide FM sounds. Why can't I use it? > > Arguments in favor of creating wider than required signals remind me of > folks > who buy a car with a huge engine and then insist they be allowed to drive at > no > less than 90 mph. > If they don't want us to drive us fast, why do they make such cars? And why do the speedometers go up so high? (devil's advocate mode = off) 73 de Jim, N2EY ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
