RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

To: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
From: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Reply-to: k.siwiak@ieee.org
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 14:08:41 -0500
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
Hi Chen
Have at it! I'm just posting information as I can find it.

Info:
Note that PACTOR-III was built for the commercial market.
I think only PACTOR-III SL1 and SL2, the two lowest order speeds fit in 1500 Hz.
SL6 uses 18 tones at 2040 Hz max separation, at 100 baud with DBPSK, and to me
looks like it would require 2200 Hz BW. Yes, they claim it is 2K20J2D and is legal today.
That is still not 2800!

73
Kai

On 11/23/2013 1:02 PM, Kok Chen wrote:
On Nov 23, 2013, at 8:00 AM, Kai wrote:

Again, to keep what we can do today, (up to the 300 baud RTTY with up to
1000 Hz shift) would require a bandwidth of
      300+1.2(1000) = 1500 Hz. THAT is the current RTTY teleprinter mode limit
That is actually a darn good suggestion, and does not deviate from what we can 
do today on FSK with the current regulations.

I.e., the narrowest 2 tone FSK bandwidth you can get by using the maximum 
symbol rate and FSK shift that is allowed from the existing regulations.

This would include 850 Hz RTTY shift too, which will allow good experimentation 
to further study selective fading.

Mind if I plagiarize that to include in my own comments to the FCC?

P.S.  It would also de-legalize Pactor III and create a different religious 
war.  (Pactor III is 2K20J2D emission.)

73
Chen, W7AY


_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>