| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 08.07.00 16:31l 215 Lines 7350 Bytes #-9406 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_181C
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/181C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0KFB<DB0CZ<F6KFG<DB0PSC<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<DB0OVN<DB0PKE<DB0GOS<
DB0NOS<DB0BRI<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8WNO<PI8HGL
Sent: 000708/1113Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:59752 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_181C
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 00 21:35:44 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_181C>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
[snip]
Clearly the peak to average ratio [A better measure might be peak to (rms)
root mean square ratio.] of "iseal" Gaussian noise in infinite.
What I meant to say was that the peak to rms ratio of Gaussian noise is very
high. In fact for practical laboratory Gaussian noise generators it is in
the range of 12 - 15 dB.
My point was that for a signalling waveform to be bandwidth efficient (i.e.
very high bps/Hz) Dr. Shannon in 1948 that it must approximate the
characteristics of Gaussian noise. Indeed all modern high bandwidth
efficiency digital communications systems utilize high PAR waveforms.
Hence my point that low PAR or constant envelope signalling schemes like FSK
or PSK are not as bandwidth efficient as those with higher PAR...
Now a classical CW transmitter waveform has a much higher PAR than an FSK
signal, hence it is potentially more bandwidth efficient (bps/Hz).
Clear?
Peter ["CW is digital"] K1PO
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:22:13 -0700
From: "Johnny Rico" <lawdog2@ibm.net>
Subject: CW versus hi speed digital etc.
"Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8jvi03$n57$1@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> Hey Roger:
>
> Don't want to learn about digital communications by studying one of
the
> simplest and most efficient scheme's ever invented?
>
> What?
>
> Peter ["CW is digital"] K1PO
>
After wading through 5 years or more of boring posts about the virtues
of Morse Code on amateur.policy, I frankly do not welcome more such
posts on this forum. Morse Code is not a digital mode as most
amateurs use that term. No one can honestly say that this forum is
about Morse, is intended to be about Morse, or has ever been about
Morse. Just as I do not think it is proper for long posts about pet
dogs to be on rec.birds, it is not appropriate for the digital.misc
forum to be an outlet for the Pro-Morse line. Just take it somewhere
else OM. Please. Tired of having Morse thrown in our faces every
time we are trying to discuss something entirely different. It isn't
as though the Morse guys ever say anything new. To the contrary, over
and over and over about it's the most efficient mode, simple, etc.
etc. Just take it to .policy or somewhere (anywhere) else. Please.
Roger J. Buffington
W6VZV; w6vzv@arrl.net
____________________
Visit my QRZ page: http://www.qrz.com/callsign.html?callsign=w6vzv
Visit my photo page: http://www.photopoint.com/users/U185957.html
"Politicians are the same the world over...
They promise to build bridges, even where there are no rivers."
-- Nikita Khruschev
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 22:40:53 -0500
From: "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: CW versus hi speed digital etc.
Roger:
I am very sorry to tell you this, because your post is so sincere, but...
you are way off base!
This entire thread, and especially my postings, have not been about CW,
rather it has been about digital communications techniques in general.
Including source encoding [data compression for you computer jocks],
channel encoding [computer jocks won't know what that is], modulation
[computer jocks won't know much about that] and the effectiveness of
different signalling waveforms.
CW per se, was used in my postings only as a simple understandable example
of digital signalling from time to time.
IRoger, i you do not chose to, or rather, as I suspect cannot make
intelligent contributions to a technical discussion of digital transmission
techniques, then just point all postings on here with "CW" in the subject
line to your "delete" file.
If however you really want to interact, learn and contribute to a technical
discussion about modern digital communications techniques, then by all means
post away...
I notice that you have not yet made any significant technical contributions
to this thread.
Whereas several others have done so.
Roger, do you have any questions, thoughts, or comments about digital
signalling and digital transmission that you wish to share with us?
Which of the current amateur digital modes do you think are the most
efficient, why, and how would you rate them? What do you mean by efficiency
when rating and comparing digital transmission techniques, etc....?
Best Regards,
Peter [CW is really digital, and we all have a lot to learn from a study
of why it is so effective!] K1PO
"Johnny Rico" <lawdog2@ibm.net> wrote in message
news:3963fda6_1@news1.prserv.net...
>
>
>
> "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:8jvi03$n57$1@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> > Hey Roger:
> >
> > Don't want to learn about digital communications by studying one of
> the
> > simplest and most efficient scheme's ever invented?
> >
> > What?
> >
> > Peter ["CW is digital"] K1PO
> >
>
> After wading through 5 years or more of boring posts about the virtues
> of Morse Code on amateur.policy, I frankly do not welcome more such
> posts on this forum. Morse Code is not a digital mode as most
> amateurs use that term. No one can honestly say that this forum is
> about Morse, is intended to be about Morse, or has ever been about
> Morse. Just as I do not think it is proper for long posts about pet
> dogs to be on rec.birds, it is not appropriate for the digital.misc
> forum to be an outlet for the Pro-Morse line. Just take it somewhere
> else OM. Please. Tired of having Morse thrown in our faces every
> time we are trying to discuss something entirely different. It isn't
> as though the Morse guys ever say anything new. To the contrary, over
> and over and over about it's the most efficient mode, simple, etc.
> etc. Just take it to .policy or somewhere (anywhere) else. Please.
>
>
> Roger J. Buffington
> W6VZV; w6vzv@arrl.net
> ____________________
>
> Visit my QRZ page: http://www.qrz.com/callsign.html?callsign=w6vzv
> Visit my photo page: http://www.photopoint.com/users/U185957.html
>
> "Politicians are the same the world over...
> They promise to build bridges, even where there are no rivers."
> -- Nikita Khruschev
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:19:35 -0500
From: Jeff Kilgore <kilgore@dev.tivoli.com>
Subject: Digipan Software for PSK-31
I'll second that. I enjoy PSK31 very much, but would like to see more
Hellscheiber activity. A good place to look is around 14.063. I'm
available for skeds if anyone is interested.
I highly recommend the IZ8BLY software. It works very well and is easy
to learn.
73,
Jeff, KC1MK
Rob wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> You may also want to try PSKHell which is a new designer Hell mode. In my
> view, PSKHell is a MUCH better mode than PSK31 at copying VERY weak DX
> signals since your brain makes the final decision at which character was
> actually sent. (With PSKHell, characters are transmitted as IMAGES).
>
> PSKHell also appears to cope MUCH better than PSK31 with multipath fading
> and polar flutter.
>
> The most popular Hell software was written by IZ8BLY for Windows 95/98 and a
> sound card. It is FREE!
>
> For information on Hell and the exciting new PSKHell mode, see
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_181D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
