Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Re\:\s+m\-FSK\:\s+SNR\s+vs\s+bandwidth\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Re\:\s+m\-FSK\:\s+SNR\s+vs\s+bandwidth\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. LF: Re: m-FSK: SNR vs bandwidth (score: 1): Author: "James Moritz" <[email protected]>; Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 16:00:01 +0000; Dear LF Group, I seem to be the only station so far that has had some success with both WOLF BPSK and 7FSK modes over transatlantic paths, so here is my comparison: W!TAG was able to get perfect copy; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2002-01/msg00498.html (13,605 bytes)
2. RE: LF: Re: m-FSK: SNR vs bandwidth (score: 1): Author: "Talbot Andrew" <[email protected]>; Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 09:49:05 +0100; --Original Message-- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 04 January 2002 04:36 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: LF: Re: m-FSK: SNR vs bandwidth demanding combination,; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2002-01/msg00505.html (12,256 bytes)
3. Re: LF: Re: m-FSK: SNR vs bandwidth (score: 1): Author: [email protected]; Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 23:36:00 EST; << So in summary, I believe that extending LF DX achievements will be best served by developing a BPSK or DBPSK scheme. >> Interesting that we appear to be coming full-circle to what LowFERs in the S; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2002-01/msg00507.html (8,251 bytes)
4. LF: Re: m-FSK: SNR vs bandwidth (score: 1): Author: "Vernall" <[email protected]>; Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 08:54:30 +1300; Happy New Year, I believe that Markus, DF6NM has made some salient points: ...... The question for our weak-signal work is not so much how to decrease the error rate of a strong signal, but rather wh; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2002-01/msg00509.html (11,680 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]