"We were waiting for you to get busy with something else. :-P"
Are you trying to tell me I was hogging the board? Sorry, I'll behave! --- In [email protected], MCH <m...@...> wrote: > > We were waiting for you to get busy with something else. :-P > > Joe M. > > wb6dgn wrote: > > Hey, guys! I'm trying to rewire my workbench area and I can't keep my mind > > on what I'm doing, thinking about this subject! Where were you guys when I > > had nothing else to do??? Nuts! Back to the workbench. > > Tom > > > > --- In [email protected], "wb6dgn" <wb6dgn@> wrote: > >> Also, wouldn't Carson's rule mitigate that characteristic? > >> > >> --- In [email protected], MCH <mch@> wrote: > >>> I would agree with the quality issues, but does that really equate to > >>> unintelligibility on any significant scale? > >>> > >>> Joe M. > >>> > >>> Matthew Kaufman wrote: > >>>> On 8/27/2010 8:18 PM, wb6dgn wrote: > >>>>> If you reduce the modulation without reducing the receiver bandwidth, > >>>>> then, yes, the range will be reduced. You have reduced the signal > >>>>> without also reducing the noise. However, if you reduce the modulation > >>>>> and, at the same time, reduce the receiver bandwidth and audio > >>>>> recovery, by a like amount, then I do not see how the signal:noise > >>>>> ratio, and therefore range, would change appreciably. > >>>> Relationships aren't linear, or you'd be right. Reducing the modulation > >>>> index and simultaneously reducing the receiver bandwidth from 5 to 2.5 > >>>> kHz results in a situation which requires ~6 db more signal level for > >>>> the same demodulated quality (ex. 12db SINAD) > >>>> > >>>> Matthew Kaufman > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------------ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >
