] Re: New Oliva
"Standard" Forthcoming?
Last night I monitored a number of 80 meter contacts. There
was some MFSK16 but was very weak and I found it difficult to print well.
The Olivia stations were much stronger and did print quite well and were
running 500/8. However, the
Last night I monitored a number of 80 meter contacts. There was some
MFSK16 but was very weak and I found it difficult to print well. The
Olivia stations were much stronger and did print quite well and were
running 500/8. However, the MFSK16 is much narrower in terms of BW and
that should be co
heck no ... we have more than enough confusion
already, indeed thrive on it hi hi
- Original Message -
From:
Bill
McLaughlin
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 9:07
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Oliva
"Sta
Sorry, my error. Working for the military has jaded me abit...the term "standard" I took to mean an imposed criterion. I do agree with you as to "whatever works"; that is part of the fun...seeing what works better. And yes, I have learned to discern the mode via the waterfall apperance..took som
ssage -
From:
KV9U
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 7:51
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Oliva
"Standard" Forthcoming?
A major consideration of the various Olivia modes on the
lower bands is baud rate. If you have
A major consideration of the various Olivia modes on the lower bands is
baud rate. If you have good conditions, the 62.5 baud rate should be OK
much of the time, however it is somewhat above the 45 baud rate that was
experimentally determined to be a cut off point with some ionospheric condx.
I
bandwidth
John
VE5MU
- Original Message -
From:
Bill
McLaughlin
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:17
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Oliva
"Standard" Forthcoming?
I think (and that alone surprises a
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Bill McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> I think (and that alone surprises a few) that perhaps a "convention"
> rather than a "standard" is at question. I tend to use various
> combinations based on conditions in addition to those mentioned (often
>
I think (and that alone surprises a few) that perhaps a "convention" rather than a "standard" is at question. I tend to use various combinations based on conditions in addition to those mentioned (often 4/500 and 8/250). I understand the difficulty of discerning what mode is in use, especially b
