Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Scott Dorsey wrote: wrote: My greatest fear is that the FCC will totally do away with code in it's testing requirements, which will logically lead to a mass spectrum reassignment to make more room for voice and we will likely loose our valuable spectrum space in the process. But once the last license goes to SK what's to stop the FCC from giving it all away? Well, one of the nice things about code is that you don't _need_ very much bandwidth. And with modern DSP you should be able to make IF filters even narrower than my old R-390... should be possible to cram hundreds of carriers into the space of one SSB channel. So true, and low bandwidth helps CW get though when SSB would be impossible. However, don't forget that CW can be done quite nicely with a cheap computer, some simple cables and some free software without learning it. I suppose that one could argue that a human ear can hear what a computer can't, but I'd be willing to argue that point in favor of the computer. I'll be willing to bet that there won't be much improvement over CW in the raw "get the message though under bad conditions" power with the new digital modes using the same bandwidth as CW. Simple is under-rated in my book. As an operating mode CW is alive and well and likely to stay, however it will be computer driven more and more as the art dies off and new blood is not required to learn it as well as the old. Change is neither good or bad, it's just change. -= Bob =- |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Proposal 3 (US Hams) | Policy | |||
Proposal 4 (US Hams) | Boatanchors | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1412 Â September 3, 2004 | CB | |||
Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test) | Policy |