Well, I can't speak for everyone but I am against it, not because it is new,
but because it is impractical for a mode that wide to be commonly used on the
busy bands. And because of the way it has been introduced and the attitude of
the developer in banning users he doesn't like which is not wit
Agree on that ,,, ros is wide band and there is not enough room for all ..
It is for long distance not for italy spain or similar
And about the bandwith used: jose is working on the soft to make more than
just one conversation on a given channel possible
But that is not done yet so for the first
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Siegfried Jackstien"
wrote:
> I do not know what you and the others in the hall of shame did that made
> jose angry
>
So... assume it is the other way round: José made many US radio amateurs angry
[by publishing a fake FCC document and by hard coding ban
There is a KB to KB derivative of WSPR I believe called WSJT/JT65A but that is
beside the point [that would end in a discussion on S/N ratio versus speed].
It's about a "new mode" that is mainly used at 2250Hz bandwidth at +8dB by it's
users, and with three calling frequencies hard coded into t
But the thing is, Siegfried, WSPR is limited by design to use just 200Hz of
spectrum. Each individual user needs only about 6Hz of bandwidth. JT65 also
uses quite a small part of the spectrum. I accept that those modes don't allow
the free text contacts you are looking for, but these modes can h
>Jose is then inventing the (too wide) wheel again. José's goals have been
met by WSPR far and far better...
No that is not correct
Does wspr send keyboard to keyboard with any text at any given time with 300
signs a minute ?
No wspr is different in many ways
Wspr is okay for propagation test
Jose is then inventing the (too wide) wheel again. José's goals have been met
by WSPR far and far better...
