Message-ID: <345E86C9A2A344079191CD97C01A8580@AGB>
From: "Graham" <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <DB8B3073C216478DBD30E4276D9F5794@AGB> <4BE25AE7.17008.1C21E7@dave.davesergeant.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BE25AE7.17008.1C21E7@dave.davesergeant.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 14:46:34 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Importance: Normal
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_LF:_Re:_500_Permit_emission=E2=80=99?=
	=?UTF-8?Q?s_bandwidth=3F__EU_and_Global_=3F=3F?=
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="UTF-8";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Ok Dave,

Yes  , My  Permit  is the  same  , with  all  modes except  speech, th=
ere=20
is  a possibility that  after the  Ros  tests  in the  week, that Jose=
 ,=20
may code a  faster  version of the  eme  mode as  a live  chat  mode,=
 but  I=20
have advised him that  there  is a  problem  with the mode  bandwidth,=
 so=20
any  system coded  may have to  fit  into a  100 Hz slot.

There are other  issues which are  well  aired , however  assuming at=
  some=20
point these are  resolved,  then  it should prove to  be a viable  dat=
a=20
mode for  500  and  possibly  137 (assuming 100 Hz is ok  on 137) He=
 has=20
indicated , quote '    100 HZ at 6.25 baud. Speed it would be about 15=
0=20
characters/minute, half of PSK31, and 8.5dB better than PSK31.'  this=
 I'm=20
sure  would  be  most  useful and being single carrier /phase-c  is =
 suited=20
to the  E/D  pa's  in use and  would not suffer  from the  phase  prob=
lems=20
on 500  that  psk  has.

Lets  hope this is a positive  outcome  from the  Ros tests  last week=
 !

G ..


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Dave Sergeant" <dave@davesergeant.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 7:00 AM
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: LF: Re: 500 Permit emission=E2=80=99s bandwidth?  EU and Glob=
al ??

>
> On 5 May 2010 at 22:39, Graham wrote:
>
>
>> Can any one indicated  what is the  permitted  ~telegraphyTM  bandw=
idth
>> of the various ~newTM 500KHz  licences or  special  permits issued=
 round
>> the  EU and now the  rest of the  Globe ?
>>
>> I have the impression that 100 Hz is the maximum ~telegraphyTM
>> transmission bandwidth, in some cases, eg , Belgium at 100 Hz .  Ot=
hers
>> appear to be some what wider or not defined ?.
>>
>> Norway  is CW only  ? what is the  Dutch  allocation ? Southern Ire=
land
>> ? ... etc
>
>> Are  Beacons defined by  mode or  bandwidth  ?
>
> It is important to differentiate between 'permitted' as a licence
> requirement or 'actual' bandwidth. The UK has never had bandwidth (f=
or
> any mode) specified in its licence for any band, only a general note
> (note (a) on p. 14) that it should be the minimum that the technolog=
y
> and nature of transmission permit. My 500kHz NOV says nothing
> whatsoever about bandwidth (only spurious emissions), and for what=
 it
> is worth at my request is for CW (A1A) only, ie no data. Norway I th=
ink
> is the only country with a permit that does stipulate 100Hz as a
> licence condition.
>
> 100Hz may be the 'actual' bandwidth of a typical CW signal at normal
> speeds - though will be higher at >60wpm or so, which I have not yet
> heard on 500kHz. The IARU Region 1 bandplans stipulate that the
> telegraphy only parts of the bands have a bandwidth of under 200Hz.
>
> Also needs to be considered is the receiver bandwidth. Most CW ops=
 will
> be using 300-400Hz filters, occasionally going to 100-200Hz to
> eliminate QRM problems. Much has been said about the very narrow
> bandwidth of some of the data modes, but this is largely irrelevant=
 to
> the CW op who will still be using much wider filters. A point to be
> taken into account when deciding which parts of the bands to put CW=
 and
> data (on any band, not just 136/500).
>
> 73 Dave G3YMC
>
> http://www.davesergeant.com
>
>
>=20