That was the idea of the low power transmission. It looks as if there
may still be some work to be done on optimising the pixel duration
against particular decoding software settings - Spectrogram does not
seem particularly useful except for the widest version tried - and at
20Hz bandwidth this defeats the purpose I had in mind.
It would be a difficult test to arange, but I wonder if there is any
fair way to compare readability of Slow SMT Hell with Slow CW using
equivalent bandwidth and equivalent time versions of both. Calculation
should give most of the answers and needs doing anyway to find
comparable speeds/bandwidths for a fair testing programme. Then perhaps
I could transmit alternate modes throughout a day for some serious
measurements.
Walter, I suggest you get a copy of Spectan - Hi.
Andy G4JNT
beacon signal all day. Signal width was 2.5Hz / Pixel rate 2s on
137.6kHz. Power to the antenna was 6 Watts with ERP around 0.6mW.
Yes, received here OK but must say it's a bit impractical. I only have
Spectrogram and to get the aspect ratio right I needed to have a 20000
mS scan time - far too long. Your 20 Hz on Saturday was far better and
much quicker - 500 mS scan. Walter G3JKV
It was just visible, but very weak. Knowing what the letters were, made
it
possible to identify it. John, G4CNN
I did run Spectran at 0.086? setting and could plainly see the signal
but
far too stretched out due to my speed setting being too fast. As it had
taken about an hour to build it up I didn't try again....
It would have been easily readable with the right settings although I
could
hear nothing. Dave G3YXM.
--
The Information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent correspondence
is private and is intended solely for the intended recipient(s).
For those other than the recipient any disclosure, copying, distribution,
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on such information is
prohibited and may be unlawful.
| 