Marc,
Thank you for commenting; all good points. I think it would benefit
everyone if we take a closer look at all modes that are 4 to 5 times
wider than their narrow band counterparts to make sure that they
actually improve our ability to communicate over HF. I think it's
irresponsible to waste spectrum if there's little to be gained.
Thanks again,
Tony -K2MO
On 8/6/2010 8:42 AM, pd4u_dares wrote:
Tony,
Thus there is no thruput advantage compared to modes wich use less
bandwidth. (and not even between the two baud rates in ROS)
So: ROS 2250Hz mode is too wide for the crowded bands we already have.
Or: operating ROS is contradictory to common HAM radio operating
practice. Or: ROS is like driving a SUV in the inner city of Amsterdam.
Therefor: three "hard coded" calling frequencies [on the 20m band] for
a too wide mode (compared to current common modes) is pushing band
capacity to, or even over the limit.
So those who still think ROS is a "nice mode to experiment with" are
blind for the facts about ROS from a mere technical perspective. So
not even talking about the social aspects of the development of ROS
and it's developer, that also contradicts common operating practice as
has been shown in this group.
But I am repeating myself... ;-)
Marc, PD4U
--- In [email protected]
<mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, Tony <d...@...> wrote:
>
> On 8/5/2010 12:32 PM, pd4u_dares wrote:
> >
> > > > While the mode performs well over HF, the additional bandwidth
> > doesn't
> > > > appear to have any throughput advantage over other modes that use
> > less
> > > > spectrum. In fact, path simulations indicate that there is no
> > difference
> > > > in throughput between ROS 500/16 and ROS 2250/16.
> >
> > SIC Marc, PD4U
> >
>
> Mark,
>
> Comments?
>
> Tony
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5345 (20100805) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
