To: | [email protected] |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: LF: AF-filters and CW versus SlowCW |
From: | "Toni Bdrtschi" <[email protected]> |
Date: | Thu, 01 Apr 1999 19:10:17 +0200 |
Organization: | Phonak Communications AG |
References: | <[email protected]> <[email protected]> |
Reply-to: | [email protected] |
Sender: | <[email protected]> |
From HB9ASB, JN36pt Here some additional remarks concerning the tests: - The term "blind" means that the Test-TX was sending automatically andI did not know its text in advance. - When testing with longer dot periods (10s) I changed the dwell time and the averaging control to higher values in order to find an optimal setting. May be the result will be different under heavy QRN or QRM (Lux-effect) conditions and show an advantage for longer dot-periods. And it is alsopossible that I could get other results with other type of receivers. 73 de Toni |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: LF: AF-filters and CW versus SlowCW, Peter W. Schnoor |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: LF: RTTY signal around 137, M. Bruno |
Previous by Thread: | Re: LF: AF-filters and CW versus SlowCW, P. W. Schnoor |
Next by Thread: | Re: LF: AF-filters and CW versus SlowCW, Toni Bdrtschi |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |