Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+OPERA\s+\-\s+why\s+it\'s\s+less\s+data\s+than\s+normal\s+CW\s+\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+OPERA\s+\-\s+why\s+it\'s\s+less\s+data\s+than\s+normal\s+CW\s+\?\s*$/: 5 ]

Total 5 documents matching your query.

1. Re: LF: OPERA - why it's less data than normal CW ? (score: 1): Author: Alberto di Bene <[email protected]>; Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 18:42:10 +0100; On 1/3/2012 10:36 AM, Andy Talbot wrote: If 'someone' would publish the innards of that mode, a simple Tx only keyer could surely be developed, and te mode woue be useful And maybe somebody could eve; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2012-01/msg00455.html (9,763 bytes)
2. Re: LF: OPERA - why it's less data than normal CW ? (score: 1): Author: "mal hamilton" <[email protected]>; Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 19:10:55 +0100; Nothing wrong with Manchester.Could the problem be south of Watford Junction Until I deleted every last trace of the software after discovering it was sending IP packets, I had started analysing the; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2012-01/msg00480.html (10,572 bytes)
3. Re: LF: OPERA - why it's less data than normal CW ? (score: 1): Author: Andy Talbot <[email protected]>; Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:36:45 +0000; Sent slower (narrower bandwidth) and with added error correction bits. If 'someone' would publish the innards of that mode, a simple Tx only keyer could surely be developed, and te mode woue be usefu; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2012-01/msg00762.html (11,164 bytes)
4. Re: LF: OPERA - why it's less data than normal CW ? (score: 1): Author: Andy Talbot <[email protected]>; Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 17:55:51 +0000; Until I deleted every last trace of the software after discovering it was sending IP packets, I had started analysing the Tx sequence to see if it made any sense For any given sub-mode, the Tx slots; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2012-01/msg00858.html (10,912 bytes)
5. LF: OPERA - why it's less data than normal CW ? (score: 1): Author: "Horst Stöcker" <[email protected]>; Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 10:30:40 +0100 (CET); Hello, my first thought was: How can an average word tage more time in CW than in Opera? Then I thougth: The Morse code was optimized for being decoded by ear. If Opera is working binary to be decode; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2012-01/msg00939.html (9,696 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 5
Page: [1]