To: | farson@shaw.ca, tentec@contesting.com |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits |
From: | Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@verizon.net> |
Reply-to: | tentec@contesting.com |
Date: | Sun, 25 Jul 2004 08:54:31 -1000 |
List-post: | <mailto:tentec@contesting.com> |
Hi Adam, It depends on how you define "works better". If you define "works better" as: using the minimum bandwidth, getting through the noise better, being decodable using using just a receiver and a skilled operator, without modem or computer, immediate copy with no delay for equipment to get synched even when the receiver has not yet been tuned to just the right frequency, then CW "works better". If you define "works better" as able to exchange information without a skilled operator (or any operator) present, able to resend parts of the text that error correction cannot resolve, without the attention of an operator, higher actual throughput speed over solid paths, then the automated modes "work better". For me, CW works better, because I enjoy being more a participant in the process, than an observer of machines performing the process. Have fun with whatever mode "works better" for you. 73 DE N6KB Adam Farson wrote: Hi Ken, _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits, Tommy |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits, Steve N4LQ |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits, Tommy |
Next by Thread: | RE: [TenTec] omni v short dits, Adam Farson |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |