"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote:

Well, there is one other thing to say. But I've stolen this
from Cecil once or twice already, so I'll quote him directly
this time:

"Again, power level is only one of three inter-related
parameters. If they are not all equal, then the playing field
is not level. Your being able to copy the CW ID, which has an
equivalent 12dB power advantage, is like saying a 150w SSB
signal is easier to copy than a 1w CW signal. It's true but it
is also meaningless.

Thanks to DICK CARROLL'S LOGIC, SSB can be proven to be
superior to CW every time. That follows from ignoring any of
the throughput parameters."

Obsuscation when Cecil said it, more of the same from you!. There is
nothing there related whatever to the case cited. QED
....
If you're serious it only means that YOU don't understand Shannon's work
The channel bandwidth limit is central to any application Shannon 's theory.

They why we can increase the SNR and get more channel capacity
regardless of the bandwidth? Sounds like bandwidth isn't so
central after all, eh?

Hmmm... maybe, just maybe, that was what Cecil was getting at,
by leaving all else the same and just providing more signal to
increase the channel capacity despite whatever the bandwidth
was?

See DICK, just having attempted to use PSK-31 hasn't made you into
much of a yard stick to measure hams by. Using CW didn't seem to
help you much either... so I can't see you as a shining example of
any need to have a CW test prerequisite to having a ham ticket.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)