Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS HF Path Simulations

[Tony]

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 digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
, Tony  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

[digitalradio] Re: ROS HF Path Simulations

[pd4u_dares]

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 digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Tony  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
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS HF Path Simulations

[Tony]

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

[digitalradio] Re: ROS HF Path Simulations

[pd4u_dares]

> > 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