From: "Mike Dennison" <mike.dennison@rsgb.org.uk>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 16:51:59 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: LF: <Tech> BPSK and bandwidth
Message-ID: <3ABB7F2F.20903.19F22D8@localhost>
In-reply-to: <8799.200103231602@gemini>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Jim posed some possible flaws in alternative ways of generating BPSK in 
terms of bandwidth.

I think we must work out what is an acceptable bandwidth for LF 
transcontinental working (or indeed any other distance or path).

We must not be trapped into thinking that bandwidths close to those used for 
QRSS are essential. They may be convenient - even efficient - but if there is 
room on the band for people to use CW for intra-Europe working, why be 
forced into anything less for inter-continental? This means 30dB bandwidths in 
the region of 100Hz and 60dB bandwidths of, say 500Hz. In practice, there 
are very few people close enough to each other for a signal 60dB down to be 
audible at all.

Plainly there must be enough space to accommodate a group of people trying 
to work across the Atlantic, but this is a bandplanning issue not a technical 
one.

In short, if it is acceptable for me to use CW to work VE, it should be 
acceptable for BPSK to have the same practical bandwidth.

I bet that will start a battle!!!

Mike, G3XDV (IO91VT)
http://www.lf.thersgb.net