Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:17:11 +0200
Message-ID: <4.1.20000601131141.01835df0@mailer.inrete.it>
Data: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 13:17:32 +0100
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "M. Bruno" <spin@inrete.it>
Subject: LF: Slow CW, BPSK, machine modes
In-reply-to: <393648EF.ADBCDF55@usa.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>

In 14.06 01/06/00 , hai scritto:
>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
>
>

I agree, visually decoded CW is NOT a machine mode; the final decoding
being done by the operator eye-brain, instaead of ear-brain. 

I found it fascinating for that reason; you have to add some operator skill.

BPSK is a real machine mode; somebody talks about having a large bell calling
him when AFRICA locks on a signal. I see no interest in this, except for
propagation studies. A QSO obtained trying day after day, by previous schedule
and so on, is more rewarding to me.

73, Marco IK1ODO