| |
W4NTI > MISC 25.05.03 19:42l 29 Lines 758 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : BAP0I5$E61$1
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: PSK and/or MFSK on 2 metres & 70cm?
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<OK0PKL<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<IK6PYS<W4JAX<LZ3NP<
F6CDD<VE2WXK<VA2BBS<VE2PKT
Sent: 030525/1227z @:VE2PKT.#QBC.QC.CAN.NOAM [TNOS2.40*LINUX] $:BAP0I5$E61$1
Message-Id: BAP0I5$E61$1
From: gw3tmh@ve2pkt.#qbc.qc.can.noam
To: misc@ww
"WA8ULX" <wa8ulx@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030524184112.14544.00000301@mb-m02.aol.com...
> >Seems to me PSK and MFSK are designed to work under just those
> >conditions.....in fact VHF should be a durn site easier than HF paths.
> >
> >Dan/W4NTI
>
> Dan It works great on 6 and 2 meters, I have a regular Sked with a guy in
> Dallas, it works great.
Sounds right to me Bruce....The only digital I've done at Vhf is RTTY and
Packet at 1200. RTTY was no sweat never.
Packet was 99.9%. But sometimes the multi-path to a local machine was
disruptive. Depending on terrain.
I would think PSK would be superior in all conditons and frequencies to
those modes.
Dan/W4NTI
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
