----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Tilley" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: 500kHz WSPR Beacon
MAL wrote "..., which takes up a lot less bandwidth."
Wrong, unless the little world you live in doesn't obey the laws of
Physics and you really believe CW takes no BW.
Most if not all viable digi modes on 600m operate in such a manner that
they do not generate bandwidth wasting sidebands like even the best CW
transmitters do by the simple nature of the keying. Worst case a PSK31
signal occupies 32Hz. A WSPR signal occupies 6Hz. Both modes allow for
many QSOs or beacons in a small sliver of the band. I see no reason
that any of these modes cannot coexist with little or no impact on each
other or CW aficionados pursuing their passion.
How can they coexist if it is proposed to fill the 3 khz slot with WSPR
BEACONS, where does the CW man operate. You are correct about CW it does
indeed take up bandwidth, but hand sent morse or qrs 3 is very economic in
bandwidth terms - good observation on your part!!!!!!!!!!
G3KEV
http://fermi.la.asu.edu/w9cf/articles/click/index.html
If the above is alittle too much for your small mind try this simple
rule of thumb:
/CW Bandwidth/ = wpm X 4
So assuming your bluster is true and you are the world's best CW op,
your bandwidth is surly more than any digi mode currently in use on the
band and you should either slow down or go QRT if you really believe
your logic.
I await your further ramblings on how you've saved the world with CW and
we're all lessor men for just not getting it... With luck you'll stop
wasting internet bandwidth with your nonsense.
73 Scott
VE7TIL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1859 - Release Date: 12/20/2008
2:34 PM
| 