Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2367 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2000 11:35:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by teachers.core.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 1 Jun 2000 11:35:51 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12xTAR-0003kR-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2000 12:29:39 +0100 Received: from d06lmsgate-3.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.3] helo=lmsfw2.emea.ibm.com) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12xTAQ-0003kC-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2000 12:29:38 +0100 Received: from d06relay02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.166.84.148]) by lmsfw2.emea.ibm.com (1.0.0) with ESMTP id MAA52554 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:21:13 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from usa.net (dyn9-87-116-182.italy.ibm.com [9.87.116.182]) by d06relay02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.8.8m3/NCO v2.07) with ESMTP id MAA31626 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:28:56 +0100 Message-ID: <393648EF.ADBCDF55@usa.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 13:28:47 +0200 From: "Alberto di Bene" Organization: Undisclosed X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: Slow CW vs. BPSK etc. References: <003e01bfcba6$70b54200$ac1886d4@kevin> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Kevin Ravenhill wrote : > 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. When you say "machine" modes, are you meaning CW decoded by software or by the brain (be it aurally or visually) ? There is a profound difference... 73, Alberto I2PHD