| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
August 7th 05, 10:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
an_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: There are some pretty darn good reasons why high-speed digital HF won't work well. And they aren't related to early "knowledge" that caused hams to be relegated to those higher frequencies at the time. agreed there are reasons of course as there were then but it is folks like you with "it can not be Done.. therefore it should not be disused etc. that insure it can't be done I choose to look at a thorny problem and try to see if I can make lemonaide, maybe brew those throns in a decent cup of Tea Radio is a fairly mature field, and digital is getting there. Many people have a pretty good idea what will likely work, based on education and experience. And HF is an unruly beast, given to noisy and incredibly variable conditions. We don't have to be rocket scientists to gain that knowledge. Just as an exercise, how much information can be carried by a 1.8 MHz signal? How much error correction will be needed during the summer, and how much during the winter? Why is there a difference? Why would a wireless digital transmission system use UHF and above for data transmission? in sprict order asking I don't know, don't know, difering weather conidctions, and becuase comercail needs relaiblity where we hams are free to spend on trying stuff Yep, that is what I figured. - Mike KB3EIA - - |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Lest We Forget | Policy | |||
| Doing Battle? Can't Resist Posting? | Policy | |||
| Why You Don't Like The ARRL | General | |||
| Code a Deterrent to a Ham Ticket ?? | Policy | |||
| NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy | |||
Threaded Mode
