Re: LF: RE: Re: ROS s/ware

[Gary - G4WGT <g4wgt@tiscali.co.uk>]

Rik, LF,

ROS EME mode is 64 Hz wide apparently & the version (16 & 8 baud) Graham & I were using tonight was 500 Hz wide.

73

Gary - G4WGT.

On 30 April 2010 20:43, Rik Strobbe <Rik.Strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be> wrote:

the EME version has less than 100Hz bandwidth.
The other ROS modes are several kHz wide and not suited for 501-504kHz.
What about JT2 or JT4 as an alternative ?

73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T
________________________________________
Van: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] namens Dave Sergeant [dave@davesergeant.com]
Verzonden: vrijdag 30 april 2010 20:33
Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Onderwerp: LF: Re: ROS s/ware

On 30 Apr 2010 at 19:03, mal hamilton wrote:

> Pete
> I see what u mean. I have checked the freq of interest and concluded
> that it is not a suitable mode for the narrow 500 kcs slot available to
> us. I wonder what is next on the appliance operators list. g3kev

For once I am afraid I agree with Mal...

ROS created quite a stir when it first appeared on HF earlier in the
year. Their first suggested working frequency on 20m put it splattering
right over the IARU beacons on 14100, which it seems the developers had
never heard of. They soon moved it.... And of course the FCC have
decreed it is not legal in the USA because it is 'spread spectrum'
which is not allowed below 220MHz.

What advantage has it over the other digital modes which have been
trialed on 500kHz? It is right that we should support these various
digital modes (but none of them turn me on at all) but we should not do
so at the danger of making the band unusable for other operators (and
QSOs...).

I am not on transmit mode at the moment, just receive.

73 Dave G3YMC

http://www.davesergeant.com