Your BS detector should have certainly gone off - Wikipedia: "In
telecommunication and electronics, baud (/ˈbɔːd/, unit symbol "Bd") is
synonymous to symbols per second or pulses per second." As long as the
alleged 1 ms pulses don't happen more than 150 times per second they
would have met the 300 baud test. Baud does not define the duration
(or duty cycle) of the pulse only the frequency (or repetition rate)
of the pulse.
Further, the duration of the pulse should be immaterial in measuring
the propagation delay if one is measuring arrival of the leading edge
of the pulse. Finally, since the pseudo random nature of the pulse
train is known one can also compare the elapsed time between leading
edges with the actual transmission data just as easily as one can
measure the absolute length of the pulse. Measuring the time between
pulses is probably more accurate (if the experiment requires knowledge
of changes in propagation delay) than measuring the pulse length as
any measurement error would be a smaller fraction of the larger
interval.
Even a BA in Communications can distinguish when PhD means piled higher
and deeper ...
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 3/14/2014 6:29 PM, aflowers@frontiernet.net wrote:
This will be fun, I promise.
Kai brought up a comments by Dr. Edgar Callaway, N4II, that saying that an
actual real experiment was cut short because of the outdated symbol rate rule.
I've been through the comments, and it looks like this is the only real
experiment by a commenter that seems to have been tragically and unfairly
hampered by that outdated symbol rate...there may be others, but my crack legal
staff hasn't had time to read everything.
So, the actual comments are here:
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520962607
Have a look. Work through it. Is there anything in there that makes you this
experiment was, say, less than serious?
(Honestly Kai, your baloney detector should have gone off instantly in even a
cursory reading. You did read it, didn't you?)
I decided not to reference this in my reply comments since these comments may
have been done in ignorance (I have no idea who N4II is), but since Kai wants
to hold it up as an example we ought to at least look closely.
If this goes well maybe we can have a bonus round....
Andy K0SM/2
_______________________________________________
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
|