Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+\"Gain\"\s+between\s+qrss3\s+and\s+qrss10\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+\"Gain\"\s+between\s+qrss3\s+and\s+qrss10\?\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. Re: LF: "Gain" between qrss3 and qrss10? (score: 1): Author: "Roelof Bakker" <[email protected]>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:45:51 +0100; Dear Andy, Thank you very much for your educational piece on the signal to noise improvement possible for various modes. It might interest you that I have been testing the limits of aural CW copy usi; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2009-12/msg00064.html (12,367 bytes)
2. Re: LF: "Gain" between qrss3 and qrss10? (score: 1): Author: Anton Bärtschi <[email protected]>; Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:00:34 +0100; Hello Mike Is there a special procedure to shorten QSO's in QRSS10 or are there short signs? Couldn't we use letters in stead of numbers in our calls? Or just a 3 for 73 to give an example? 3 HBNASB; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2009-12/msg00082.html (13,751 bytes)
3. Re: LF: "Gain" between qrss3 and qrss10? (score: 1): Author: Andy Talbot <[email protected]>; Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:26:59 +0000; On this matter... For the recent talk I gave on weak signals at a Microwave Roundtable ( http://www.g4jnt.com/MartleSham.htm ) I made some simulated CW in Noise using accurately calibrated S/N levels; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2009-12/msg00131.html (15,971 bytes)
4. Re: LF: "Gain" between qrss3 and qrss10? (score: 1): Author: "mal hamilton" <[email protected]>; Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:16:19 +0100; This is what I have been saying all along and ofcourse there are Wireless Operators who know their subject and Appliance Operators fumbling with data. If you have enough bandwidth like microwave freq; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2009-12/msg00256.html (15,979 bytes)
5. Re: LF: "Gain" between qrss3 and qrss10? (score: 1): Author: "Mike Dennison" <[email protected]>; Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:21:33 +0100; There are no official differences in procedure, but of course most stations would try to send less information and shorter 'words' during slower QRSS QSOs. "73" could be replaced by "GB" (goodbye), a; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2009-12/msg00262.html (13,198 bytes)
6. Re: LF: "Gain" between qrss3 and qrss10? (score: 1): Author: "Johan H. Bodin" <[email protected]>; Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:54:39 +0100; Hi Stefan, Yes, it is not only possible, it is in fact quite simple: When the speed is reduced by a factor K, the information bandwidth is also reduced by the same factor. This allows you to use a re; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2009-12/msg00277.html (12,206 bytes)
7. Re: LF: "Gain" between qrss3 and qrss10? (score: 1): Author: Andy Talbot <[email protected]>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:59:14 +0000; Comparing QRSS with visual intepretation cannot be compared directly with CW using Aural decoding - you have to normalise values. Your ears have an 'effective' bandwidth for CW of , probably, around; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2009-12/msg00282.html (19,026 bytes)
8. Re: LF: "Gain" between qrss3 and qrss10? (score: 1): Author: Andy Talbot <[email protected]>; Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:08:16 +0000; 10.LOG(10/3) = 5dB and 10.LOG(30/3) = 10dB Andy www.g4jnt.com This email has been scanned for damaging side-effects by the health and safety police; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2009-12/msg00364.html (12,987 bytes)
9. LF: "Gain" between qrss3 and qrss10? (score: 1): Author: Stefan Schäfer <[email protected]>; Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:29:21 +0100; Dear LF, Does anybody know about the "gain" between QRSS3 and QRSS10 or QRSS30? I mean, if the noise in both cases is equal, how much can I reduce my tx pwr when switching from qrss3 to qrss10? Or is; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2009-12/msg00413.html (11,135 bytes)
10. Re: LF: "Gain" between qrss3 and qrss10? (score: 1): Author: "mal hamilton" <[email protected]>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:32:21 +0100; Comparing QRSS with visual intepretation cannot be compared directly with CW using Aural decoding - you have to normalise values. Your ears have an 'effective' bandwidth for CW of , probably, around; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2009-12/msg00458.html (18,147 bytes)
11. Re: LF: "Gain" between qrss3 and qrss10? (score: 1): Author: Rik Strobbe <[email protected]>; Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:45:50 +0100; Stefan, if output power is constant and the noise (at RX) is uniform then the SNR is directly related to the RX bandwidth, what must be at least equal to the useful bandwidth of the TX signal. The re; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2009-12/msg00517.html (12,277 bytes)
12. Re: LF: "Gain" between qrss3 and qrss10? (score: 1): Author: "Mike Dennison" <[email protected]>; Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:50:50 +0100; See my web page: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mike.dennison/index/lf/gallery/dl3zid.htm for an illustration of the difference between QRSS3 and QRSS10 on a marginal signal. Mike, G3XDV ==; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2009-12/msg00591.html (11,756 bytes)
13. Re: LF: "Gain" between qrss3 and qrss10? (score: 1): Author: [email protected]; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:57:37 +0100; Dear all, The variability of the channel properties and your life expectancy (hi) ... You've nicely demonstrated the nonsense of the 1W ERP legal limit regs. The 200 W TX output on LF and 100 W TX ou; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2009-12/msg00634.html (9,167 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]