Quoting Mike Naruta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on Tue 03 Jun 2008 06:12:51 AM PDT:

> I suspect that it is because we always try
> to push the limits in ham radio.  Sort of
> like the hot-rodder tinkering with the
> vehicle to squeeze even more performance
> out of it.
>
>
> Stereo:  why not?  Using independent
> sideband, we could do that.  What better
> place to experiment than ham radio?  There
> are several places in the spectrum where
> we can try wider-bandwidth transmissions.
>
>
> If we are dedicated to narrow bandwidth and
> efficiency, maybe we should be on CW.

CW is unique in requiring perhaps the simplest of all transmitters,  
although requiring a sophisticated receiver (to get the information  
out.. not just to convert RF).

However, it is not an energy or bandwidth efficient modulation (i.e.  
the peak to average ratio is 2:1, so you have to run an amplifier with  
twice the power, compared to some form of constant envelope  
modulation).  Folks who obsess about sending data with the absolute  
most efficient means (sending back a few bits per second from deep  
space) tend to use PSK in some form, with a LOT of coding.  On HF  
links, various multitone FSK/PSK schemes are popular, given the  
particular channel properties.

Jim, W6RMK
(who designs those deep space radios for a living)



_______________________________________________
FlexRadio Systems Mailing List
FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz
http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/
Knowledge Base: http://kb.flex-radio.com/  Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/

Reply via email to