Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <65AECDF1F89AD411900400508BFC869F0D7567@pdw-mail-1.dera.gov.uk>
From: "Talbot Andrew" <ACTALBOT@dera.gov.uk>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: LF: RE: VA3LK seen in ON
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:02:06 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Frequency cal for last nights transmission, M0BMU still  ~2.99 and
another strong signal I had assumed was Laurie but perhaps was someone
else, on ~3.78(5) (measurement readout jumps from 78 to 79).  If it was
you Laurie, your stability has infinitely improved !
=============
Re Rik's suggestions :-
Why keep to two frequencies just so it looks like morse cod ?  If we
really feel we HAVE to keep to visual modes using Soundcards rather than
using the superior capabilities given by machine decoding, how about
several levels of frequency shift in say 1Hz and just learn a new visual
code.    Just as an example of a visual code,  7 frequency levels, using
two sucessive symbols per character gives potential for 49 different
symbols, enough for letters numbers and a few punctuation.    There
would be no need to turn off the Tx for any symbol,  as a space could be
coded as a character, thus removing ambiguities with dots and noise
spikes.

That will give those who feel the need to learn a code by rote once the
CW test is abolished something to feel they've succeeded.   I believe
there were a few operators in days gone by who could even read RTTY and
Piccolo signals by ear.
Perhaps the Morse test could be replaced by a   Dual-7-Frequency  test
for an extra class of licence.
(It is Friday :-)

Andy  G4JNT


==============
> More general : it seems that it is possible to cross the pond  with
stations
> running less than 1W ERP (believe that BMU and AQC are abt  400-500mW)
but
> it needs rather long dotlengths (1 minute). So we want to  take the
next
> step to 2-way communication we might need a more 'time  efficient'
mode than
> straight morse code. 
> DFCW is about 3 times faster but it needs 2 frequencies, a  shift of
0.1Hz
> would be sufficient. More complicated 'coding' using multiple
frequencies
> could even speed up things more, using 4 frequencies we could code 64
> characters in 3 'dots'.
> Based on the experience that a 'very basic' QRSS QSO takes  about 20
minutes
> at 3 sec. dotlength this would mean over 6 hours at 1 minute
dotlength.
> With DFCW this could be reduced to about 2 hours, seems  acceptable to
me.
> Advantage of DFCW over more complicated codes is that it is
'readable' on
> screen if you know morse code.
> 
> 73, Rik
> 
> 
> 


-- 
The Information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent correspondence
is private and is intended solely for the intended recipient(s).
For those other than the recipient any disclosure, copying, distribution, 
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on such information is
prohibited and may be unlawful.