[hfsig] Re: [Flexradio] The final nail in the coffin of Morse ?
jeff at aerodata.net
Sat Jul 23 00:00:50 CDT 2005
There is effectively no bandwidth limit for OFDM modulations on HF as we speak, other then they be documented so not clear to me how the ARRL proposal will cause anyones dreams to come to fruition.
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:28:49 +0000, Robert McGwier wrote:
>You know my feelings already. These suggestions will enable real HF
> modems for the first time. I would not have dreamed of building a
> reasonable HF modem until the League proposals were brought
>forward. It would have just been a waste of time. I would have
>been run out of amateur radio for even suggesting doing MS188-
>110A,B, etc. on (say) 20 meters in the phone band. Now I can see
>doing some serious work and it actually could be interesting at
>last. We could have 19-50 Kbps NVIS modems kicking some real butt
>in 9 Khz bandwidth. Since OFDM - fade designed trellis QAM seems
>like AM to me anyway. ;-). Imagine having really serious digital
>voice over NVIS channels with S9 signals on 40 meters and running 5
>watts. Bring it on!
>DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
>>First, the NPRM was not strictly an ARRL proposal, in fact, it
>>didn't appear to me to be the major proposal or proposal that the
>>FCC used to draft the NPRM.
>>Ok Bob, we know your views on CW, which are similar to my feelings,
>> but what about the Board's decision to limit HF bandwidth to 3.5
>>KHz with a 9 KHz exemption for AM? Don't we need wider bandwidths
>>for high-speed, robust data modes? Isn't the bandwidth limitation
>>going to be a greater factor in hingering the growth of amateur
>>radio than the Morse Code issue?
>_______________________________________________ hfsig mailing list
>hfsig at lists.tapr.org https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-
More information about the hfsig