Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.19991118151311.12c7b074@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:13:11
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "Rik Strobbe" <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: Re: LF: VCW by ON7YD
In-reply-to: <E11oP5e-0003J1-00@mserv1a.u-net.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

At 10:29 18/11/99 -0000, Mike, G3XDV wrote:
>Negative points are:
>...
>The duty cycle goes from about 50 per cent with QRSs to 85 per  cent or so
for 
>VCW so there may be heat dissipation issues.  However, QSOs can be shorter.

Mike is right, one of the drawbacks is the higher duty cycle. 
Using the 'fictive QSO' between me and Mike (as I used in my first mail
regarding this topic) I come to the conclusion that a QRSs QSO takes about
27.7 minutes and has a duty cycle of about 58% while a VCW QSO will take
9.5 minutes and has a duty cycle of about 75%.
A solution might be to have a pauze of 2 dotlengths between characters and
a pauze of 4 dotlengths between words. In that case the QSO will take 11.8
minutes and the duty cycle will be about 59%.
Although the duty cycle will be the same as in QRSs mode (58% vs. 59%) the
'time gain' will still be over 230% (11.8 minutes instead of 27.7 minutes).

In fact, depending on the circumstances (PA, LPF etc.) one can choose
between 'fast VCW' with a single pauze or 'a-little-bit-slower VCW' with
doubled pauzes.

73, Rik  ON7YD