Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15977 invoked from network); 2 Apr 1999 14:27:24 +0100 Received: from magnus.plus.net.uk (HELO magnus.force9.net) (195.166.128.27) by guiness.force9.net with SMTP; 2 Apr 1999 14:27:24 +0100 Received: (qmail 17722 invoked from network); 2 Apr 1999 13:28:00 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (194.75.130.70) by magnus.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 2 Apr 1999 13:28:00 -0000 Received: from troy.blacksheep.org ([194.75.183.50] ident=root) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #3) id 10T3vR-0003OG-00; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 14:23:57 +0100 Received: (from root@localhost) by troy.blacksheep.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA11434 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 13:23:28 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from post.thorcom.com (root@post.unica.co.uk [194.75.183.70]) by troy.blacksheep.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA11430 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 13:23:26 GMT Received: from bw85zhb.bluewin.ch ([195.186.1.75]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #3) id 10T3uP-0003O6-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 14:22:54 +0100 Received: from phonakcom.ch ([195.186.13.104]) by bw85zhb.bluewin.ch ( with ESMTP id AAA3402 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 15:22:44 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: <3704B6BD.F9B37ADF@phonakcom.ch> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 14:23:25 +0200 From: "Toni Bdrtschi" Organization: Phonak Communications AG X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [de] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: AF-filters and CW versus SlowCW References: <37033EDB.63B6BC32@phonakcom.ch> <37036390.D7B84D15@nephro.uni-kiel.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org >From HB9ASB, JN36pt Somehow my last e-mail to this reflector got lost, so here again some explanations: In the meantime I've repeated the tests with two other receivers (Watkins-Johnson WJ8888 and Icom IC765): the results are the same. I've used the term "blind test" because of an automatically keyed TX with a random text. This helped my to find the point where the signal was just strong enough to copy. Unfortunately I could not also switch the power level automatically. Anyway, I think I came quite close to the "threshold point": In all cases the signal was no longer to copy when I lowered the TX output by another 3dB. Of course I've changed the dwell time and the averaging control to higher levels for the tests with longer dot periods. But as Andy said, longer dwell time is probably just a waste of time (the computer is waiting!) and this may be the reason why longer dots give no advantage under normal condx. However, in situations when longer periods of reception are wiped out by heavy QRN or QRM (Luxembourg-effect), a longer dot-time may help. 73 de Toni