[pskmail] Re: 300 Baud Rate in the USA
- From: David Kleber <kb3fxi@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "pskmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <pskmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:32:47 -0800 (PST)
From what I understand, PSK500R, BPSK250 are both fine but that's just what
I've heard in conversation.
-Dave, KB3FXI
________________________________
From: "ve7cus@xxxxxxx" <ve7cus@xxxxxxx>
To: pskmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 6:38 PM
Subject: [pskmail] Re: 300 Baud Rate in the USA
So, since PSK500R is about half the speed of PSK500 does it fall within the 300
baud limit?
Darrel, VE7CUS
On 2012-01-23, at 2:51 PM, Bernard Dekok wrote:
Dave,
>
>
>Baud rate can't be WPM / 1.2
>Winmor 8 Car 16PSK is 94 baud, at 3285 WPM on 1600 HZ bandwidth.
>See the Excel spreadsheet on this thread.
>Yep, 3285 words per minute.
>Try doing THAT on CW.....=)
>
>
>I vote for the Winmor virtual TNC as another mode option for PSKMail....
>
>
>Bernie,
>KC9SGV
>
>
>
>On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:06 PM, David Kleber <kb3fxi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>I think I recall seeing someone post somewhere that BPSK500 goes over the US
>throughput limit, but I've never seen what appears to be a well detailed
>explanation. Also, there seems to be varying opinions on how to calculate baud
>rates from wpm (wpm divided by 1.2?). It's all quite confusing.
>>
>>
>>I wish we could just go to regulation by bandwidth with a separate playground
>>for unattended ops. The robots in any bandwidth need to have their own
>>allocations which makes sense for anyone on either side of the fence (whether
>>you hate the robots or love them).
>>
>>
>>We really need to get rid of the throughput limitation, which contradicts one
>>of the key reasons for our amateur radio frequency allocation which is the
>>advancement of the art (and technology).
>>
>>
>>BTW, BPSK500 leaves a bit to be desired unless you're on a near full quieting
>>path.
>>
>>
>>-Dave, KB3FXI
>
Other related posts:
