Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Slow\s+CW\s+vs\.\s+BPSK\s+etc\.\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. LF: Slow CW vs. BPSK etc. (score: 1)
Author: "Kevin Ravenhill" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:48:59 +0100
There's a lot of discussion going on at the moment on the US "LowFER" mailing list about the relative merits of slow CW versus BPSK (in this case relating to the COHERENT/AFRICA software by Bill de C
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-06/msg00002.html (10,131 bytes)

2. LF: Slow CW vs. BPSK etc. (score: 1)
Author: "Talbot Andrew" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:49:49 +0100
There's a lot of discussion going on at the moment on the US "LowFER" mailing list about the relative merits of slow CW versus BPSK (in this case relating to the COHERENT/AFRICA software by Bill de C
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-06/msg00005.html (15,876 bytes)

3. Re: LF: Slow CW vs. BPSK etc. (score: 1)
Author: "Alberto di Bene" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 13:28:47 +0200
The general consensus of opinion seems to be that if you are going to use "machine" modes, BPSK has considerable superiority over any form of slow CW for the kind of very weak signals often encounte
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-06/msg00006.html (9,553 bytes)

4. Re: LF: Slow CW vs. BPSK etc. (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Keinanen" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 14:58:46 +0300
There's a lot of discussion going on at the moment on the US "LowFER" mailing list about the relative merits of slow CW versus BPSK I think it is appropriate time to remind that some countries have
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-06/msg00007.html (10,226 bytes)

5. Re: LF: Slow CW vs. BPSK etc. (score: 1)
Author: "Kevin Ravenhill" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:44:15 +0100
When you say "machine" modes, are you meaning CW decoded by software or by the brain (be it aurally or visually) ? There is a profound difference... 73, Alberto I2PHD By "machine" modes, I mean anyth
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-06/msg00012.html (10,883 bytes)

6. Re: LF: Slow CW vs. BPSK etc. (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Dennison" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 16:08:23 +0100
When you say "machine" modes, are you meaning CW decoded by software or by the brain (be it aurally or visually) ? There is a profound difference... 73, Alberto I2PHD This is all-important. Extremely
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-06/msg00013.html (10,527 bytes)

7. Re: LF: Slow CW vs. BPSK etc. (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Dennison" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:40:28 +0100
G2HDQ wrote: Apart from the obvious i.e. the various decoders with text output, I would put software such as Spectran (VY NICE program, by the way!), Spectrogram, etc. in the "machine modes" category
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-06/msg00014.html (11,194 bytes)

8. Re: LF: Slow CW vs. BPSK etc. (score: 1)
Author: "Alberto di Bene" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 19:07:31 +0200
......... The only part the brain is required to play in this process is to interpret the trace as letters and numbers - most of the hard work has been done already. I have to disagree. The brain ha
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-06/msg00015.html (10,413 bytes)

9. Re: LF: Slow CW vs. BPSK etc. (score: 1)
Author: "Rik Strobbe" <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 19:14:43
Hello Kevin, I took part in some PSK31 tests (receiving only) with G3YXM and I was not very impressed by PSK31. At levels were it gave a more or less usable copy the signal was strong enough to be co
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-06/msg00027.html (12,920 bytes)

10. Re: LF: Slow CW vs. BPSK etc. (score: 1)
Author: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:53:09 EDT
Indeed there has been. Some of it has gotten rather silly and occasionally a bit abusive, in fact. I'm glad to see the discussion has been more civilized here, although there are still evident tende
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-06/msg00030.html (15,235 bytes)

11. Re: LF: Slow CW vs. BPSK etc. (score: 1)
Author: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:02:18 EDT
R
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-06/msg00031.html (8,722 bytes)

12. Re: LF: Slow CW vs. BPSK etc. (score: 1)
Author: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:26:16 EDT
Rik posted while I was still struggling to finish typing mine. If he had been a bit faster or I had been a bit slower, I could have addressed some part of the bandwidth issue. <g> The necessary bandw
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-06/msg00033.html (10,290 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu