Careful Klaus your using terms that our friend Mal doesn't understand
and you may be approaching actually trying to rationalize with him...
To him CW in any form is above the laws of Physics and only those
anointed into the brotherhood of the Ditty/Dotty have been enlightened
to the point of having complete understanding...
The rest of us lacking membership in this secret brotherhood will never
get it or have QSOs with the little DX stations in our heads...
I await the usual Mal script:
1) Do you know who I am? Let me tell you how great I am...
2) I've worked Timbukto with a paper clip and a mW using CW.
3) Reason be damned I'm right even if I don't have a clue...
4) Goto 1) as he has forgotten what ever he was rambling about before...
73 Scott
Klaus von der Heide wrote:
Hello friends,
my comments to the discussion WSPR vs. CW:
(1) Modes only can be compared at a specified data rate.
Of course, CW is "better" than every thinkable digital
mode if we allow it to be slowed down until something
can be identified on the screen. What really counts is
the duration of a random QSO.
(2) Modes only can be compared at a specified error rate.
Try to communicate completely unknown messages! The
symbol error rate of CW at it's ultimate snr is
relatively high. Getting confidence in a callsign
needs a low symbol error rate, i.e. a good snr.
(3) I am working on a digital mode for minimal QSOs.
In simulations with Gaussian noise and Rayleigh fading
it is 1 dB above the Shannon limit. On-off-keying as
used by CW by principle cannot reach that.
Wishing the best for 2009,
73 de Klaus, DJ5HG
|
