expeditionradio wrote: > RMPSK31 (160Hz) example <500Hz bandwidth > Carrier A: Freq = 000Hz Time = 0sec > Carrier B: Freq = +160Hz Time = +0.16sec > Carrier C: Freq = +320Hz Time = +0.32sec > > RMPSK63 (320Hz) example <1kHz bandwidth > Carrier A: Freq = 000Hz Time = 0.0sec > Carrier B: Freq = +320Hz Time = +0.32sec > Carrier C: Freq = +640Hz Time = +0.64sec > > In some conditions of interference, improvements in fading and > interference rejection may be seen with non-periodic increments, and > wider separation between redundant carriers: > > RMPSK63 example 2 (non-periodic) ~1.2kHz bandwidth > Carrier A: Freq = 000Hz Time = 0.0sec > Carrier B: Freq = +410Hz Time = +0.41sec > Carrier C: Freq = +1000Hz Time = +1.0sec >
What has been the experience with frequency-selective fading? I've noticed (watching waterfalls) that fading appears frequently as a sliding notch through the waterfall... might it be better to have the zero-time signal in the middle, with the delayed data above and below? Or is the probability of the fade syncing with the retransmission not that high? 73, Paul / K9PS Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
