> Does this comfort you?
As comforting to a CW op feels when I unleash 2.8 kHz wide digital signals down
at 14.025 MHz, where I am authorized by the FCC to do.
Wide signals and narrow signals just don't mix (I still remember a quote by
Henning Harmuth at an IEEE conference back in the 1970s regarding the use of
Walsh Functions as radio carriers).
Keep 2.8 kHz signals above 14.125 MHz and it might make sense.
Otherwise change the existing symbol rate rules to limit bandwidth to 500 Hz.
Not 2.8 kHz.
Re: Harmuth. Henning Harmuth had back in the 1960s proposed a different
orthogonal basis instead of sine waves, and had developed an entire system
(including how to phase antennas for Walsh carriers). His orthogonal basis?
The Walsh Function. And instead of Fourier Transforms and spectrum, you have
Hadamard Transforms and Hadamard spectrum.
At one conference, someone pointedly asked (I paraphrase): "Prof. Harmuth, your
system would just splatter all over our spectrum of carrier based signals,
making the existing systems useless." Harmuth's reply: "No, it is *your*
carrier based systems that are creating wide splatters in *my* Hadamard
spectrum and rendering my system useless."
Now imagine that the Hadamard stuff extends over 2.8 kHz.
Ivory Tower? Look up Walsh Functions and Hadamard transforms on the web and you
might find that some of your favorite digital modes actually use them (but over
a narrower bandwidth).
I still have Harmuth's "Non-sinusoidal Waves for Radar and Radio Communication"
(1981, ISBN 0-12-014575-8) on my book shelf. Fascinating read (stuff like how
to construct bandpass filters for Walsh functions) if you like thinking out of
the box. There is even a section on "Bandwidth Required for Teletype and Data
Links."
73
Chen, W7AY
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|