Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4206 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2001 19:16:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO warrior.services.quay.plus.net) (212.159.14.227) by excalibur-qfe1-smtp-plusnet.harl.plus.net with SMTP; 31 Dec 2001 19:16:27 -0000 X-Priority: 3 Received: (qmail 2617 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2001 19:16:26 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by warrior.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 31 Dec 2001 19:16:26 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16L7t6-00001S-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 19:14:20 +0000 Received: from smtp1.ns.sympatico.ca ([142.177.1.91] helo=mail-ns01s0.ns.sympatico.ca) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16L7t5-00001N-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 19:14:19 +0000 Received: from ns.sympatico.ca ([142.177.77.71]) by mail-ns01s0.ns.sympatico.ca (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-68925U141000L141000S0V35) with ESMTP id ca for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 15:11:50 -0400 Message-ID: <3C30FF2F.67247280@ns.sympatico.ca> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 19:13:35 -0500 From: "john currie" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: Re: waste References: <200112311645.fBVGjQ808427@smtp.wanadoo.nl> <3C30A142.B2B4697F@usa.net> 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: Hi Alberto, It's not just nostalgia. I, for example favor dfcw, because it is superior to cw because the dash length is shortened to be the same as the dot length. And for the same signal to noise ratio, therefore, information can be passed almost twice as fast. From what I see with 7f some freqs are transmitted on simultaneously which is reducing the power per element and some elements are shorter than others. To me there is no obvious improvement over dfcw while wasting spectrum space. As I have asked before, if there is enough improvement in the ability to send information to compensate for the spectrum space used , I would like to know about it. Also where the signals are so much weaker here in North America I find it difficult to read the closely packed stations On a Happier note, I just replaced Argo 110 with 128 and i appreciate the vast improvement. thanks Alberto for a good and simple to use system 73 es HNY de John VE1ZJ Alberto di Bene wrote: > >From the screen capture I posted in a previous message > this morning, it is quite evident that yesterday evening > the band was crowded, but NO-ONE stepped on the > toes of another. The signals were all quite identifiable, > being disjointed in frequency. > > While myself think that the 7FSK is not optimal, nevertheless > it is a first step to leave behind our shoulders the CW, the > son of the spark transmitters. For weak-signal work, more > modern coding schemes must be used, based on the current > status of the information theory. And, having myself been a CW > operator for many years, I do recognize its charm, but I am > afraid it is a charm based on nostalgy... > In this world there must be ample space for nostalgy, but > nostalgy should not mean nor imply immobility or ultra-conservatism. > > Just my 2 cents of Euro (what an appropriate time...:-) > > 73 Alberto I2PHD