Message-ID: <003e01bfcba6$70b54200$ac1886d4@kevin>
From: "Kevin Ravenhill" <kevin.ravenhill@ukonline.co.uk>
To: "LF Group" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: LF: Slow CW vs. BPSK etc.
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:48:59 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

There's a lot of discussion going on at the moment on the US "LowFER"
mailing list about the relative merits of slow CW versus BPSK (in this case
relating to the COHERENT/AFRICA software by Bill de Carle, VE2IQ). The
general consensus of opinion seems to be that if you are going to use
"machine" modes, BPSK has considerable superiority over any form of slow CW
for the kind of very weak signals often encountered on the LF bands.
Estimates of the effective improvement range from 6dB to 23dB depending on
what factors are taken into account!

At the risk of causing some heated discussion, I'm curious to know the views
of members of this list - particularly in relation to future transatlantic
attempts.

Also, does anyone have an idea of the relative usage of slow CW (QRSs and
related FSK modes) versus modes like PSK31/PSK08 etc, in Europe? My
impression is that various forms of slow CW are still favoured by most
people (and perhaps rightly so, in terms of picking the best/most convenient
mode for what you are trying to do), but I haven't been able to monitor the
LF bands for some time so I don't really know what the current situation is
like.

For anyone who isn't subscribed to the abovementioned list and wishes to
subscribe, send an email to majordomo@qth.net with no title and with
"subscribe lowfer" in the body of the text. You'll get a return email with a
password which has to be sent back, after which you'll be subscribed.

Regards

Kevin, G1HDQ