Hi, Bob.
Pactor I and II have bandwidths of <500hz, which according to the table
near the bottom of http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html means
these semi-automatic modes could be used in any of the following
frequency ranges: 3580 to 4000, 7035 to 7300, 10120 to 10150, 14065 to
14350, 18100 to 18168, 21080 to 21450, 24920 to 24990, and 28050 to
29700.
WinLink 2000 uses Pactor II, and thus could be used in any of the above
frequency ranges; see http://winlink.org/SCS.HTM .
I also thought Pactor I and II were "wide modes", but they are not; see
http://people.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~signals/FFT/PACTOR-II_FEC.HTML . The
SCS PTC-II manual specifies Pactor II's bandwidth as being less than 500
hz at -50 db.
Pactor III is indeed a wide mode, with a bandwidth of ~2.1 khz as shown
in http://people.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~signals/FFT/PACTOR-III-16.HTML.
It would be restricted in frequency range as you suggest below.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-----Original Message-----
From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com]
On Behalf Of Robert McGwier
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 08:27
To: RTTY
Cc: TAPR HF Sig
Subject: RE: [RTTY] ARRL Proposal to redefine subbands by bandwidth
<<Bandwidth in the existing "RTTY/data subbands" would be limited by
rule to either 500 Hz or 3 kHz. In the following subbands where 3 kHz
would be permitted, phone emissions would specifically not be permitted:
3650-3725, 7100-7125, 14100-14150, and 21150-21200 kHz. The reason for
this is to encourage the development of higher-speed data communications
in these subbands by preventing them from becoming de facto "expanded
phone bands." The prior ARRL proposal to expand some HF phone bands is
included in the separate FCC Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket
No. 04-140, and is taken into account in these new proposals. >>
Please explain to me one line of this where it says that PactorIII, etc.
will be allowed to operate below (for example) 14100. I don't believe
it says that anywhere. I read this as saying that the wide modes will
be restricted to above these X.100 limits.
Bob
N4HY
-----Original Message-----
From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com]On
Behalf Of John Fleming
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 3:34 AM
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: [RTTY] ARRL Proposal to redefine subbands by bandwidth
I'm posting the message below from Skip (KH6TY). We were touching on
this subject recently on this reflector, and I think Skip's observations
are important starting points for discussion about how this might effect
the RTTY contesting community. - John, WA9ALS
--------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|