Hi Alberto, It's not just nostalgia. I, for example favor
dfcw, because it is superior to cw because the dash length is shortened
to be the same as the dot length. And for the same signal to noise
ratio, therefore, information can be passed almost twice as fast. From
what I see with 7f some freqs are transmitted on simultaneously which
is reducing the power per element and some elements are shorter than
others. To me there is no obvious improvement over dfcw while wasting
spectrum space. As I have asked before, if there is enough improvement
in the ability to send information to compensate for the spectrum space
used , I would like to know about it. Also where the signals are so
much weaker here in North America I find it difficult to read the
closely packed stations
On a Happier note, I just replaced Argo 110 with 128 and i
appreciate the vast improvement. thanks Alberto for a good and simple
to use system
73 es HNY de John VE1ZJ
Alberto di Bene wrote:
>From the screen capture I posted in a previous message
this morning, it is quite evident that yesterday evening
the band was crowded, but NO-ONE stepped on the
toes of another. The signals were all quite identifiable,
being disjointed in frequency.
While myself think that the 7FSK is not optimal, nevertheless
it is a first step to leave behind our shoulders the CW, the
son of the spark transmitters. For weak-signal work, more
modern coding schemes must be used, based on the current
status of the information theory. And, having myself been a CW
operator for many years, I do recognize its charm, but I am
afraid it is a charm based on nostalgy...
In this world there must be ample space for nostalgy, but
nostalgy should not mean nor imply immobility or ultra-conservatism.
Just my 2 cents of Euro (what an appropriate time...:-)
73 Alberto I2PHD
|
