Dick Carroll; wrote:

It isn't on the FCC's website yet but you can read it here....




http://www.eham.net/articles/6371




If CW does enjoy a 13 dB advantage over SSB, avid DX hounds will
choose to learn it and use it on their own. No need for a license test.
CW makes for small bandwidth combined with simple equipment.
NASA doesn't use CW with its deep space probes, but they have
fancy equipment on both ends. I mention this in that NASA does the
ultimate in weak signal work, something CW is usually good for on
ham bands with simple equipment and trained operators. But there's
no CW op on the space probe.

Or we could do an "either or": For the extra, pass element 1 or a new
element 5 (a tougher written) with your general license. And for the
general,
either element 1 and the general written, or the general and extra writtens
with your tech license.

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
Dick Carroll; wrote:

It isn't on the FCC's website yet but you can read it here....




http://www.eham.net/articles/6371




If CW does enjoy a 13 dB advantage over SSB, avid DX hounds will
choose to learn it and use it on their own. No need for a license test.
CW makes for small bandwidth combined with simple equipment.
NASA doesn't use CW with its deep space probes, but they have
fancy equipment on both ends. I mention this in that NASA does the
ultimate in weak signal work, something CW is usually good for on
ham bands with simple equipment and trained operators. But there's
no CW op on the space probe.

And plain old binary FSK has a bit more than a 9 dB weak signal advantage
over OOK Morse ... if you slow it down to equivalent data rates ...

More modern digital techniques are even better. Some produce perfect
copy at s/n ratios where even the best CW operator couldn't even detect
the PRESENCE of a CW signal, let alone begin to copy it.

However, Dick and other Morse fanatics insist that those modes aren't
a suitable option because they (dread the thought) require a computer
(and some hardware/software that I'm sure "Shannon doesn't mean squat
Dick" couldn't even begin to understand).

Carl - wk3c

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
Dick Carroll; wrote:

It isn't on the FCC's website yet but you can read it here....




http://www.eham.net/articles/6371




If CW does enjoy a 13 dB advantage over SSB, avid DX hounds will
choose to learn it and use it on their own. No need for a license test.
CW makes for small bandwidth combined with simple equipment.
NASA doesn't use CW with its deep space probes, but they have
fancy equipment on both ends. I mention this in that NASA does the
ultimate in weak signal work, something CW is usually good for on
ham bands with simple equipment and trained operators. But there's
no CW op on the space probe.

And plain old binary FSK has a bit more than a 9 dB weak signal advantage
over OOK Morse ... if you slow it down to equivalent data rates ...

If you have an optimized receiver and suitable conditions, maybe - depends on
what you determine to be "equivalent data rates".

But hams don't do slow-HF-BFSK. 60 wpm FSK Baudot RTTY is about the most basic
data mode still in use by hams.

More modern digital techniques are even better. Some produce perfect
copy at s/n ratios where even the best CW operator couldn't even detect
the PRESENCE of a CW signal, let alone begin to copy it.

That all depends on the equipment in use. Using a receiver optimized for one
mode in an attempt to receive another may or may not be a good idea.

What mode do you use most on HF, Carl?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
.. . . .

However, Dick and other Morse fanatics insist that those modes aren't
a suitable option because they (dread the thought) require a computer

Modes which require a computer to run 'em cut both ways. Having to use
a computer to run the stuff represents a huge increase in station
complexity and the inevitable corresponding decrease in station
reliability. Additionally cost, weight, space, power consumption,
required technical skills and a bunch of other factors also mitigate
against the use of computer-based modes.

Given the mythical average ham who could care less about weak-signal
performances and/or throughput rates. Very few of which show up around
here, least of all in this discussion. So in this sense Dick is right.


(and some hardware/software that I'm sure "Shannon doesn't mean squat
Dick" couldn't even begin to understand).

Carl - wk3c

w3rv