There wil be no way to police any bandwidth restrictions. Period. The ARRL
should concentrate on real problems like cb'ers in the ten meter band
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Fuqua
To: Joe Isabella ; Amps
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Amps] Centurion cooling improvement ideas for AM service
With easing up on the requirements to get a HF license. It is becoming
more and more difficult to find a spot to operate. Some would interpret
6KHz bandwidth limit for SSB to mean that splatter is acceptable. 3 Khz is
sufficient band width to communicate by voice. In fact telephones have been
built using the 300 to 3000 Hz band width ( or there about) as being
sufficient for all voices but
perhaps not music.
6 kHz on SSB would be greater audio bandwidth than used for standard
AM broadcast (5kHz). Which was adopted to accommodate music broadcast.
The other side to using 6kHz for SSB in particular on the receiving end
would require twice the transmitted power to accomplish the same signal to
noise as compared to 3khz. And 3 times the tx power than when using 2kHz.
So the minimum power rule enters in as well.
Using twice the bandwidth than necessary just does not make sense.
What I don't understand is the use of independent sideband. What does
ISB have to do with ham radio. It was used for long distance phone
communications before undersea cables and satellites to either transmit two
or more channels or for secure transmissions. Are we going to transmit
stereo? If so it seems to be a waste of bandwidth.
Also, mixing automated digital modes and voice or manual CW is a bad
mistake. For example a PSK 31 station observing a CW station would perhaps
think that he is not going to interfere with it and go ahead and transmit
only 50 or 100 Hz from the CW stations frequency. Or a CW station may think
that a PSK31 station was just a birdie or some other obnoxious signal that
was not a ham station if he did not have a means of monitoring (a computer
and such). You can hear the modulation on a PSK31 signal if you have
sufficient signal strength. But other wise it may just sound like some
other spurious signal produced by the numerous microcontrollers in the
neighborhood.
The accepted minimum bandwidth for CW 3 times the dit rate (2.5 times
WPM= Hz bandwidth) the word rate. The theoretical limit is actually the
dit rate but it is difficult to copy with out using a computer at that
narrow of a bandwidth (this is easy to prove mathematically). So 11 or 12
WPM would take up the space of 1 PSK31 signal if we limited the rise and
fall time of the transmitter to what would be necessary. Or if you used a
computer to copy, the speed of OOK (CW) could be raised to over 20 wpm but
to limit the TX bandwidth to the real bandwidth limit would require more
than a key click filter. Just limiting the rise and fall times to some
value will not do it. This is another story entirely. You might call it
SSBCW with Carrier.
My fear is that if we persist in setting HARD limits in bandwidth and
such we will finally end up with the HF bands defined as channels (like
60meters) and require everyone to use "Standardize radio equipment". This
would prevent lots of experimentation and learning by young and old ham. I
would like one change, after giving it much thought. That is, to allow HF
amplifiers to be manufactured that can be driven by low power
transmitters. This allows QRP operators/experimenters to easily purchase
QRO equipment. It is OK as long as there are provisions for not allowing
amplifiers to be sold to non-HF-hams.
73
Bill wa4lav
At 12:02 PM 8/26/2004 -0700, Joe Isabella wrote:
>Apparently, I'm one of "these morons". However, be careful not to cast
>stones when you live in a
>glass house, because "Bassiness" has nothing to do with the extended
>BW. Only the high
>frequencies take up the extra amount between 3 and 6 kHz. I run out to 6k
>sometimes, but only
>when there is enough space. I'll continue to use my bottom end even if I
>only run out to 3.2kHz
>or so.
>
>One other thing to keep in mind is that these rules only affect the
>US. There are many Canadians
>running 6k SSB (hence my moving to Canada comment), so don't expect all
>the 6k SSB to miraculously
>disappear. Their gov't allows 6k in the voice spectrum which is
>plenty. I don't understand why
>we have to put such strict limits on it.
>
>Oh well -- I guess I'll keep on using AM at 9 kHz of bandwidth all the
>time istead of the 4 to 6
>kHz that I would normally have been running on SSB. Be careful what you
>ask for.
>
>Joe,
>N3JI
>
>--- "Steven Grant, W4IIV" <stevengrant98@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > the reason they are doing this is because some folks love to have very
> bassey audio. thier egos
> > say that they must have broadcast quality audio.
> > i dont think they will do away with AM or 10m FM
> > i do believe that they need to limit SSB widths cause some of these
> "morons" insist on taking up
> > bandwidth with a 5kc wide SSB signal
> > steven, W4IIV
> >
> > "R.Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 25, 2004, at 1:12 PM, Joe Isabella wrote:
> >
> > > Prezactly... Except that it allows wider digital modes in the "CW"
> > > bands, and it limits SSB Voice
> > > to 3 kHz. I'm not a big fan of this move by the League -- seems silly
> > > to put these limits in
> > > place on voice. I think I'll move to Canada...eh??
> > >
> > Joe -- Letting the amateur radio community determine how a band is used
> > has worked well enough on 160m. The vast CW wasteland presently on 80m
> > is a good example of bad rule-making.
> > end
> >
> > > Joe
> > >
> > > --- Vic Rosenthal wrote:
> > >
> > >> R.Measures wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Thanks, Joe. So this means that if adopted, 10m FM as well as AM
> > >>> will
> > >>> be illegal.
> > >>
> > >> The bandwidth allowed in 29.0 - 29.7 MHz is 16 KHz.
> > >>
> > >> There is a specific provision to allow DSB AM in the 3 KHz areas:
> > >>
> > >> "(1) The 3 kHz maximum bandwidth does not apply to double-sideband
> > >> amplitude-modulated phone A3E emissions which are limited to --26 dB
> > >> bandwidths of 9 kHz."
> > >>
> > >> You can read the whole thing at:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> It's not going to make any revolutionary changes.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> 73,
> > >> Vic, K2VCO
> > >> Fresno CA
> > >> http://www.qsl.net/k2vco
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Amps mailing list
> > >> Amps@contesting.com
> > >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
> > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Amps mailing list
> > > Amps@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
> > >
> > >
> > Richard L. Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734. www.somis.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Amps mailing list
> > Amps@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
> >
> >
> >
> > STEVEN GRANT W4IIV
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> > _______________________________________________
> > Amps mailing list
> > Amps@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
> >
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
>http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
>_______________________________________________
>Amps mailing list
>Amps@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|