And the protoype HeyPhone was tested on 73 kHz in Yorkshire. No-one complained.
John
F5VLF
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 05/01/2009 at 22:22 Dave G3WCB wrote:
>Dear LF,
>
>Geri DK8KW and Markus did some interesting slow-voice experiments on 137
>kHz a few years back.
>
>Definitely not a DX-mode, and a bit of a bandwidth-gobbler too ;-)
>
>Follow the link below:-
>
>http://www.qru.de/slowvoice.html
>
>73, Dave G3WCB IO91RM
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
>[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of M0FMT
> Sent: 05 January 2009 02:37
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: LF: Re: Silent majority
>
>
> Hi LF
>
> Since by general consent the 600m band is now wide open for
>experimentation of whatever computer aided mode that can be down loaded
>for free off the Internet. Might I suggest the use of SSTV. They say a
>picture is worth a 1000 words. I have thousands of holiday snaps I would
>like to share with the world by way of a 24/7 beaconing experiment. The
>result may be a bit more interesting than the shopping lists of stations
>worked, equipment lists and rig specifications that get churned out ad
>nauseam over the weekends.
>
> I am not sure what my afore mentioned local Amateur Radio 600m op
>friends would feel being only a few miles away from my QTH.
>
> No, the above suggestion is ridiculous. It does however, Einstein,
>Planck et al withstanding, beg the question; what is a suitable maximum
>bandwidth for the development of new modes on our British 3Kc/s 600m band?
> I will start the ball rolling by saying a BW no more than 50c/s. G3PLX
>managed with less than 32c/s BW. Since there is a QSB / QRN issue on this
>band then hand shaking could be introduced to ensure error free data
>transfer a bit like X25 slow but sure yet confined in a very narrow
>bandwidth say 50c/s max. We need to think outside the box and not try to
>shoe horn unsuitable modes onto 600m. To evoke names like Planck and co
>with all due respect to Alberto (who I admire immensely for his great
>innovations with DSP, SDR, FFT processing software) I think, is over the
>top. Nobody is into book burning and denial of spectrum to impede progress
>but we only have 3kc/s to play with here in the UK. I consider myself a
>â??gruntâ?? operator not a highflying â??Einsteinâ?? radio spectrum
>quantum mechanic, but I would hope we are trying to do more with less and
>I donâ??t think Olivia is the answer. Whatever modes are proposed and
>developed, I would expect one of the cardinal points in their
>specification, along with very narrow BW, to be compatibility with
>adjacent modes like CW and the effect on adjacent stations not running
>that particular mode.
>
> In the mean time I am hoping to improve my manual CW skills
>assuming there are any stations still interested in that form of error
>correcting narrow band data transfer and are still prepared to QSO with me.
>
> Now retreating into my cave with my knuckles dragging along the
>ground.
>
> Vy 73 petefmt
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 5/1/09, Alberto di Bene <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Alberto di Bene <[email protected]>
> Subject: LF: Re: Silent majority
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Monday, 5 January, 2009, 12:05 AM
>
>
>Steve McDonald wrote:
>>> There is virtually nothing new to discover or invent that has not
>already
>>> taken place on MF.
>>
>> There you go guys. You may as well stop your 600m experiments right now
>as
>> Mal has proclaimed that there is "nothing new to discover".
>Wouldn't it be
>> wonderful if we could all see the future as clearly as he apparently
>does.
>> What an amazing gift.
>>
>> VE7SL / Steve
>
>This reminds me what Max Planck did write at the beginning of past century.
>At the turn of the 20th century scientists were absolutely certain that
>there
>was nothing more to be discovered in theoretical physics.
>Max Planck, recalling the mood of optimism and conviction at that time,
>wrote:
>
>â??When I began my physical studies [in Munich in 1874] and sought advice
>from
>my venerable teacher Phillipp von Jolly... he portrayed to me physics as a
>highly developed almost fully matured science... Possibly in one or another
>nook there would perhaps be a dust particle or a small bubble to be
>examined
>and classified, but the system as a whole stood there fairly secured, and
>theoretical physics approached visibly that degree of perfection which,
>for example, geometry has had already for centuriesâ??.
>
>The history of physics during the 20th century did show how dumb was that
>point of view...
>
>73 Alberto I2PHD
|
