On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Jose Angel Amador Fundora wrote:
} On 26 Mar 99 at 14:57, Karl F. Larsen wrote:
}
} > Pactor is hard on your transmitter.
}
} Pactor-II is not as hard. It "has envelope", so you are forced to
} run amplifiers with emphasis on linearity, and average power is about
} half the peak power.
So what? You still are transmitting more than when in a qso on
ssb.
}
} > I use a TS-50 which is a very small radio and the cooling fans are
} > on all the time when doing pactor. So far so good. No blown
} > transistors. But I run the rig at 50 watts instead of the 100 watts
} > max.
}
} Usually I run LESS THAN 25 watts on 40, 30 and 20 meters. The
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
} demodulators-decoders on the PTC-II are real gems. Also, PSK has no
} threshold and gives useful output at C/N ratios that are useless for
} FSK. Heat is no longer a problem, and thruput is far better.
}
Assuming PSK is phase shift keying and C/N ratios is Signal to Noise ratio
and FSK means Frequency Shift Keying, the words above make no sense at
all. Jose is saying that ptcII is using PSK and that makes it much better
than a unit using ...PSK.
My MFJ uses PSK for pactor. The pctII talks to my pactor so it
must use PSK too. What is the point here?
Jose, a deal: I will publish the protocal in total for pactor and
you publish the protocal used by ptcII in total and then we will let the
smart people on this list decide just how much better/worse ptcII is.
If you can't do what you need to do, then stop telling us that
ptcII works better than pactor. I and many others do not believe you.
} 73 de Jose, CO2JA
}
} ---
}
} Ing. Jose A. Amador | Telf: (537) 20-7814
} Depto de Telecomunicaciones | E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
} ISPJAE |
}
Best wishes
- Karl F. Larsen, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (505) 524-3303 -
