[Lowfer] QRSS Alternative

[Eric Smith]

This should be rich, huh?  A reply from me, a way newbie, on a complex 
subject like this?  Want entertainment?  Read on:


On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 paulc@snet.net wrote:

> 
> W1VLF takes 27 minutes  as apposed to 60 minutes using standar 3:1 QRSS.
> 
> This advantage may just put that callsign in the midst of a prop peak where
> a 1 hour ID would not have survived.


This all sounds good to me.  The two disadvantages _I_ (think I) see are:  
tough to audible ID (but then QRSS60 isn't that easy either, is it? :) and 
wide bandwidth.

Regarding the bandwidth, someone mentioned the other day something about 
how we were splitting hairs (sub Hertz) and who ever would have thought 
we'd be doing this a year ago.

Can someone explain to me what was going on a year ago?  Were you just 
then exploring how really narrow this stuff is?

And how does that trend to narrower band utilization fit in with Paul's 
(very clever) new mode?

I like the idea -- I am interested though in seeing some more comments.  
The most concerning to me is the bandwidth usage.  However, this is 
clearly a good idea on many fronts.

Eric