[aprssig] 9600? Faster?
Curt, WE7U archer at eskimo.comThu Jul 7 15:53:12 UTC 2005
- Previous message: [aprssig] 9600? Faster?
- Next message: [aprssig] 9600? Faster?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Phillip B. Pacier wrote: > Robert Bruninga wrote: > > >Same here. We did extensive tests with 4 different > >radios over 200 feet separation using lab attenuators > >and a very long run of RG58 to eliminate any chance > >of leakage. The diffrence was 7 dB. So it takes > >50W at 9600 to equal 10W at 1200 baud. Or > >about half the range. > > > > > I have heard you say this before, and we have just not found this to be > the biblical case here in southern California. Mobile works fine. > Distance from station to station is the killer. Maybe it's the > soil....maybe it's the earthquakes... it just works here. :) Might part of this be the different pre-emphasis used on some of the 9600 baud rigs/TNC's? I recall that being a problem. Or was that just the 1200 baud pre-emphasis on the Kenwoods that was different? -- Curt, WE7U. APRS Client Comparisons: http://www.eskimo.com/~archer "Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math." -- unknown "Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." -- WE7U "The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!"
- Previous message: [aprssig] 9600? Faster?
- Next message: [aprssig] 9600? Faster?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the aprssig mailing list
