The best or the worst days are coming!

[al2i]

I know I have posted pretty crankily at times about the CW issue, but that is because CW is my favorite mode, and people get on the board saying bad things about it. I also wanted some sort of CW testing to remain in the license structure, either as an Extra-class incentive, or as an alternative for kids to skip an element.

But one of the very best things is about to happen to CW, as many thousands of US amateurs will be able to participate in this mode on the HF bands in only a few weeks. It is something I always felt would be good, should be allowed, and will infuse a lot of new activity and excitement into the bands. With a new solar max in the near future, this could be the best time for radio enthusiasts ever.

So if you are suddenly experiencing a whole new set of privileges in a few weeks, please get on the air and use them! But please use them right! Don't make grumpy old farts like me right about the coming QRM, but rather, prove me wrong! I'll love you for it, and I may even remember to QSL.

If you want to use CW right, there is no better gift you can give yourself than the very soul of ham radio: the gift of Code.

Learn it! No matter how hard it seemed in the past, that was your emotional block in the way! You know what I am talking about: that stubborn refusal to do something you don't want to do because someone tells you that you have to do it. Well, no one is forcing you now, and the Code is easy -- really, really easy to learn.

As a plus, you will have an actual communications skill that no one can take from you. You can send Morse code with your headlights, your car horn, or, as my daughter did to me once in a restaurant, with patterns of little dots and dashes of ketchup on her French fries!

On the air, there is simply no substitute for Morse code. The best DX is all in the code band segments, and code, by focusing all of your transmit power in a tiny bandwidth and allowing you to use incredibly tight receiver filtering, will carry your QSO through the very worst band conditions, including the terrible auroral conditions I often put up with that will destroy sideband voice and soundcard-based digital modes for days at a time.

Did you ever talk to someone hundreds or even thousands of miles away whose transceiver fits in a tin of mints and runs on a 9-volt battery? I have, and it is an entirely new feeling of competence to have solid copy across several mountain ranges using a battery smaller than your thumb and using a radio whose entire component list can be counted on your fingers (and toes heh)...

But if you want all of the old farts to be right about the new generation of hams; if you want me saying "I told you so" and if you want to see yet more discord in the ranks of Amateur radio, then fire up the computer, plug in your Rigblaster and start using Morse code to chase DX. We will hate you for it, and brother you ain't seen nothin' yet!

[NN4RH]

[yawn]

Somebody wake me up when we get there ...

[ki4ned]

yaaawwwn... when do you get it? cw is only one of many modes, get over it

[NN4RH]

Are we there yet?

Are we there yet?

[K7JBQ]

Proving once again you can lead a horse to drink, but you can't make him water.

73,
Bill

[W3MIV]

I'm afraid I have to go along with the yawning.

Some of you guys are obsessing, and you are making yourselves miserable over something that has yet to occur (for good OR ill) and over which you have no control.

[ab1ga]

al2i:

An honest sentiment, sincerely delivered. Those last words of admonishment could have been omitted without loss of effect, but stuff happens.

Waver not, for you are working toward a worthy goal. But do not look here, those you seek will be on HF, in the Technician CW subbands. You'll know them by the slow speed and uncertain swing. Might you lead a beginner's net, part practice, part ragchew?

Who knows, if I can get my station reassembled (major basement rearrangements) and my straight key greased (if I can find it!), I just might join you.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (ab1ga @ Jan. 30 2007,16:25)]An honest sentiment, sincerely delivered. Those last words of admonishment could have been omitted without loss of effect, but stuff happens.
I should know better than to show sincerity. I had a weak moment. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif


"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet."

[W5HTW]

Actually newcomers HAD access to the HF bands, for decades, under the Novice license. Many thousands of hams started that way, on real HF with real CW.

I think the big differences, though, are they were beginners, not ones who had been in ham radio for a decade or more, but limited to VHF, and they just did what it took to get on the air, instead of waiting for it to be changed so they, too, could play.

In the past few years the Novices have all but disappeared, hence the refarming of the bands. No one left for the Novices to talk to except each other. Back in the 50s a lot of Generals frequented the Novice bands, but in recent years that has pretty much gone away. So the poor Novice had nothing to do, and became a lame duck dinosaur.

The current move is probably a wise one, in that it will put the Techs, at least the ones who do or try CW, on the HF bands with the experienced ops, even if that experience is only a few days older. It will give them, just as it did to the Novices in the 50s and 60s, a taste of how it really is.

I'd imagine most current Techs are thinking of upgrading, and the vast majority of those will never experiment with CW. That's OK. But for those who do, at least they will be mingling with more experienced operators.

I don't see any negative future on the CW bands, except that perhaps one day there won't even BE any CW bands. But that is still a few years in the futurre. While we still have CW allocations in the form of suggested CW subbands, it is likely they will remain pretty much as they are now.

If there are differences in the "new ham radio" versus the ham radio of 2000-2006, it will be on the phone bands.

Ed

[W5IEI]

The "as long as I get on HF I don't care what happens to everyone else"attitud is rampant here.
Look at the disrespect of the first few posts.

Noone has ever been kept from HF,only their own stupidity,or laziness!!!

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Jan. 30 2007,17:07)]If there are differences in the "new ham radio" versus the ham radio of 2000-2006, it will be on the phone bands.

Ed
I don't get on HF phone very often, so I will not be affected by anything that happens there. Additional activity on the digital modes will be cool. The only thing that personally will affect me is computer-driven code in the HF DX windows. That could get ugly.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (W5IEI @ Jan. 30 2007,18:19)]The "as long as I get on HF I don't care what happens to everyone else"attitud is rampant here.
Look at the disrespect of the first few posts.

Noone has ever been kept from HF,only their own stupidity,or laziness!!!
Everyone that has posted here is an extra, except for you and NED.

[KE5FRF]

March shall be an interesting month.

[NN4RH]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Jan. 30 2007,20:41)]March shall be an interesting month.
And then by April, everyone will calm down and get a life again.

[wd0ct]

Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Jan. 30 2007,18:48)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Jan. 30 2007,20:41)]March shall be an interesting month.
And then by April, everyone will calm down and get a life again.
You and I wish. No way it will happen though.

It will be one round after another of I heard these horrible noobs talking like cbers, breaking rules, acting bad, using noise toys, and fornicating with animals.

Watch and see...

[wd0ct]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 30 2007,18:29)]Quote[/b] (W5IEI @ Jan. 30 2007,18:19)]The "as long as I get on HF I don't care what happens to everyone else"attitud is rampant here.
Look at the disrespect of the first few posts.

Noone has ever been kept from HF,only their own stupidity,or laziness!!!
Everyone that has posted here is an extra, except for you and NED.
Shhh, don't confuse him further.

[NN4RH]

Oh my. I feel it now. I feel it too!!. I'm ... I'm... yes ... the adrenaline has kicked in, I've become mezmarized by the endless debate, and NOW I AM OBSESSING TOO ! ! ! ! I GOTTA contribute to the CODE-NOCODE insanity ! ! ! ! I got Happy Fingers !

"This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." (Winston Churchill)

"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" (Winston Churchill)

The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word 'crisis.' One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger - but recognize the opportunity. (JFK)

No culture can live if it attempts to be exclusive.
(Mohandas Gandhi)

[kc4ylv]

The supreme irony of it all is that for somebody who did not grow up with CW or lack of Internet, the reality of HF versus 'what the OM's say HF is' is the biggest letdown in Amateur Radio.

The 75 meters you experience with a phased array at 75 feet fed by an Ameritron (maybe runnin 1.6, 1.8? wink wink nudge nudge, i've heard the numbers some of y'all rattle off at 3am when you think nobody's listening) isn't even the same band that somebody with 100 watts and a dipole at 15 feet is working.

My prediction: six weeks of frustration from the new guys, followed by a mass re-exodus to VHF..

[NN4RH]

"A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on." - William Burroughs

"I am NOT paranoid - everyone really IS out to get me!" - Anonymous

"Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative." - Oscar Wilde

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" - Salvor Hardin

[kf4vgx]

Perhaps the worse day,for some.
The best day for others http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .

[NN4RH]

Nostradamus of course predicted this way back in 1557 -

He who will succeed the great monarch on his death
Will lead an illicit and wanton life:
Through nonchalance he will give way to all,
So that in the end the Salic law will fail.

Of course this passage predicts that once the Morse Code test (the great monarch) is eliminated (on his death) all the newbs (he who will succeed) will turn the HF bands into CB (illicit and wanton life) through lack of enforcement (nonchalance) of the FCC regulations (Salic law).

It's so OBVIOUS. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/ghostface.gif

[KC9JIQ]

Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Jan. 30 2007,19:48)]Nostradamus of course predicted this way back in 1557 -

He who will succeed the great monarch on his death
Will lead an illicit and wanton life:
Through nonchalance he will give way to all,
So that in the end the Salic law will fail.

Of course this passage predicts that once the Morse Code test (the great monarch) is eliminated (on his death) all the newbs (he who will succeed) will turn the HF bands into CB (illicit and wanton life) through lack of enforcement (nonchalance) of the FCC regulations (Salic law).

It's so OBVIOUS. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/ghostface.gif
Somebody finally made a logical reason why CW should stay, LOL too late. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Jan. 30 2007,18:03)]Oh my. I feel it now. I feel it too!!. I'm ... I'm... yes ... the adrenaline has kicked in, I've become mezmarized by the endless debate, and NOW I AM OBSESSING TOO ! ! ! ! I GOTTA contribute to the CODE-NOCODE insanity ! ! ! ! I got Happy Fingers !
I've never noticed you before, but it is a pleasure seeing your special contributions to the discussion. You are obviously a deeply admired amateur radio operator. Thank you for sharing your wise and thoughtful insight with fellow hams.

[NN4RH]

Quote[/b] ]Thank you for sharing your wise and thoughtful insight with fellow hams.

About as useful as yours ... You're welcome.

One flew east, One flew west, One flew over the cuckoo's nest.

[NN4RH]

Hey, AL2I, why don't you post that pig-radio link again. It was really wise and thoughtful the first two times. Maybe it will be even wiser and thoughtful..er if you do it again.

Oh, and don't forget to end the post with another wise and thoughtful threat vis-a-vis Quote[/b] ]We will hate you for it, and brother you ain't seen nothin' yet!

[ka5piu]

Hello.

To say that a Novice had no one to talk to is totally wrong.
I was a novice for years, and always had someone to talk to.
The only thing I would have changed was to allow all modes in the Novice ten meter voice segment.
SSB is all well and fine, but most Novices run across CBs to convert or Business band radios on the cheap.
220 is fine, as this just ment that we Novice class had to convert that old HT-220 to 220.
And, remember, just about every Novice did go on to bigger and better things.
Like CW.
Are the no-code extras going to learn code?
It just depends on how bad they want into the CW segments.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Jan. 30 2007,19:11)]Hey, AL2I, why don't you post that pig-radio link again. It was really wise and thoughtful the first two times. Maybe it will even wiser and thoughtful .. er if you do it again.
Now it is apparent why you are having such an unhappy day.

The talking pig was deliberately idiotic. I never imagined that someone would feel personally insulted by a talking radio pig, but wonders never cease. Perhaps it was unwise of me to post it, but now I am glad I did. Bringing a stream of invective and taunts to me because you didn't like a toy radio will result in nothing good for you.

What is truly fascinating is that your original *yawn* is now evidenced to be just the opposite, as you were actually boiling with emotion, and are apparently still quite upset. The intent of my post was not to upset anyone.

I am sure that you are a fine operator and I look forward to meeting you on the air.

I'll be on the bands in about an hour and a half somewhere near 14.009 or 14.045 as I can get into Europe pretty easy from this QTH at that time. Feel free to give a call just in case some of that quiet, dark-hour 20-meter skip is working...

[K7JEM]

I thought your original post was quite good, up to the last paragraph.

Then you just went psycho.

Joe

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 30 2007,21:17)]I thought your original post was quite good, up to the last paragraph.

Then you just went psycho.

Joe
Hmmm... I guess I see the hate now as being small-change stuff with what will happen if the CW bands are filled with computer ops. The idea of trying to work around keyboarders who cannot tell what is happening on freq. by what they see on their screen is an unpleasent but very likely scenario that will drive the dischord to new levels.

[VE7NOT]

Hmmmm Not sure where I stand.

Code is great. As said its a mode and a fun one.

Not a requirment here.

Yet I know 10wpm.

By myself and G4FON as well as CW communicator.

Yep. Code is fun.

As far as ham radio goes though. Use it have fun. Don't use it and still have fun. Same thing.

And as to al2i. I need to catch up again on cwcomm. Hope you still come on there?

[k7mh]

Quote[/b] ]Are we there yet?

Are we there yet?

Im thirsty!!

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (VE7NOT @ Jan. 30 2007,22:01)]And as to al2i. I need to catch up again on cwcomm. Hope you still come on there?
Sorry Sim, but I have not had the key by the computer for a while now. I will look for you when I do though!

[NN4RH]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 31 2007,00:17)]I thought your original post was quite good, up to the last paragraph.

Then you just went psycho.
Exactly. The post was just a verbose set-up so he could take yet another a tired old swipe at new hams. Disappointing. Bait and switch. Useless troll.

[yawn] is about being tired of the almost constant anti-new-ham innuendo on the board.

The various other quotes, are germane. You'll get the points if you think about it.

It's just change. Get over it. It is nothing to be bitter or frightened about. The ham bands are not going to fill up with "keyboarders" and "qrm" just because the new guys don't pass a CW test. Give the new folk some credit.

They're not all out to get you, they're not all stupid, they are not all thoughtless.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Jan. 31 2007,00:55)]They're not all out to get you, they're not all stupid, they are not all thoughtless.
Good points. We will see how things develop during the next few years. I would like to see some of the CW bandwith -- say the bottom 15kHz of each band -- designated as manual-operation-only, if only by a gentleman's agreement. That would avoid a lot of potential friction.

[ka5piu]

Hello.

I thought the talking pig thing was kind of funny in a sarcastic sort of way.
But, then again, I have my robosapian reprogrammed to say things like, "Mating season already?".
And, when hearing the key phrase from a woman, "we gotta talk" the response is "Why did no one inform me of the talking dog?".
It may say "Suck eggs!" in place of the normal grunts that the things normally do.
And, the last thing you want to do is try and pick it up.
Hint, the power unit is out of a disposable camera flash.
So, it should not come as a shock to you that it has an RF section from a 900 MHz analog cordless phone set up
under the amateur bandplan.
Guess where that radio is?
Hint, the only really open area for a robosabian is the bottom back section, unless one wants to do some geeky external mods.
And, just think, we are going to have hundreds of people like me experimenting on the amateur bands.

[N5FOG]

After reading all the posting about fears of no-code guys causing total chaos by running computerize CW something occurred to me.

If the pro-code people would have quietly let the code exam drop their fears of NCT's and computerized CW would most likely be a non-issue. What would have happened is the no-code guys would all flock to the phone bands and would have left CW alone and this would be a non-issue.

But the pro-code camps chose to make sure to tell every no-coder the whole bit about how great CW is and how its the end all to be all of modes. And when ever a no-code guy made a comment about working DX, the pro-codes were sure to inform or brag how much of the "real DX" is only on the CW parts of the band.

And then they get all upset about the talk of NCT's and their computerized CW. If the OT's would have just kept quiet about the code and quietly just hide in the CW sub-bands the no-code guys would have just stayed in the phone bands and been totally oblivious to the action in the CW bands. But due to all the coverage about the “real DX” in the CW sub-bands you have everyone wanting to go get a computer to tap out CW.

There is a old saying about picking your battles, sometimes its best to just grin and bear it as opposed to making a scene and attracting attention because sometime you will get attention you don’t want (no-coders and their CW computers)

Just some food for thought on the issue.

Eric KC5FOG

[al2i]

I really may run some computerized code on the bands, as one of my former bosses did on an experimental 135kHz system. The system was about 1 dit every 90 seconds, but he was able to work a great series of DX experiments. I would like to try something similar on one of the regular ham bands in a QRPp mode someday. It just takes a while to get your message across!

[PE1RDW]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 31 2007,11:49)]I really may run some computerized code on the bands, as one of my former bosses did on an experimental 135kHz system. #The system was about 1 dit every 90 seconds, but he was able to work a great series of DX experiments. #I would like to try something similar on one of the regular ham bands in a QRPp mode someday. #It just takes a while to get your message across!
The fear of computerised CW misses a very important point about current soundcard software, they all have a waterfall display, this means that they will see how far away from the other qso's they are and if a CW op is trying to talk to them but is to bad for the software decoder.
yes software ops see CW as just another digital mode but at least they see what is happening around them unlike manual ops that have to use filters and mis that rare dx just a few 100 hz from their qso.

The manual ops offcourse have the advantage of being able to work the bad fists too.

As for the QRSS modes, my personal favorite is the FDCW system where the dahs have the same lenght as the dits but are offset by about 20 hz. it safes a lot in onair time.

[N8CPA]

FOOD FIGHT!

[N8CPA]

Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Jan. 30 2007,23:00)]Quote[/b] ]Thank you for sharing your wise and thoughtful insight with fellow hams.

About as useful as yours ... # You're welcome.

One flew east, One flew west, One flew over the cuckoo's nest.
He said, "I can't live without you."
She said, "I can't live without you."

Then she went east.
He went west.
And they both lived.--Carl Sandberg.



East is east and west is west and ne're the twain shall meet.

What twain?

The twain on twack thwee.--Abbot and Costello

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ Jan. 31 2007,03:16)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 31 2007,11:49)]I really may run some computerized code on the bands, as one of my former bosses did on an experimental 135kHz system. #The system was about 1 dit every 90 seconds, but he was able to work a great series of DX experiments. #I would like to try something similar on one of the regular ham bands in a QRPp mode someday. #It just takes a while to get your message across!
The fear of computerised CW misses a very important point about current soundcard software, they all have a waterfall display, this means that they will see how far away from the other qso's they are and if a CW op is trying to talk to them but is to bad for the software decoder.
yes software ops see CW as just another digital mode but at least they see what is happening around them unlike manual ops that have to use filters and mis that rare dx just a few 100 hz from their qso.

The manual ops offcourse have the advantage of being able to work the bad fists too.

As for the QRSS modes, my personal favorite is the FDCW system where the dahs have the same lenght as the dits but are offset by about 20 hz. it safes a lot in onair time.
Andre,

If they have their filters set wide enough to see a significant portion of the spectrum around them then they are not seeing the full benefit of reduced noise level associated with narrow filters. Therefore they are not going to be able to work the weak DX that the manual operators with very narrow filters will be able to work.

tim ab0wr

[PE1RDW]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Jan. 31 2007,14:54)]Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ Jan. 31 2007,03:16)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 31 2007,11:49)]I really may run some computerized code on the bands, as one of my former bosses did on an experimental 135kHz system. #The system was about 1 dit every 90 seconds, but he was able to work a great series of DX experiments. #I would like to try something similar on one of the regular ham bands in a QRPp mode someday. #It just takes a while to get your message across!
The fear of computerised CW misses a very important point about current soundcard software, they all have a waterfall display, this means that they will see how far away from the other qso's they are and if a CW op is trying to talk to them but is to bad for the software decoder.
yes software ops see CW as just another digital mode but at least they see what is happening around them unlike manual ops that have to use filters and mis that rare dx just a few 100 hz from their qso.

The manual ops offcourse have the advantage of being able to work the bad fists too.

As for the QRSS modes, my personal favorite is the FDCW system where the dahs have the same lenght as the dits but are offset by about 20 hz. it safes a lot in onair time.
Andre,

If they have their filters set wide enough to see a significant portion of the spectrum around them then they are not seeing the full benefit of reduced noise level associated with narrow filters. Therefore they are not going to be able to work the weak DX that the manual operators with very narrow filters will be able to work.

tim ab0wr
There are a few situations that narow filters are needed to work weak signals but as long as the signal levels inside the passband don't overload the frontend and mixer the dsp power of computersoftware like mixw can proform the same as narow IF filters, just turn off the AGC.
However even with narow IF filters the risk of frontend overload can kill a signal that normaly would be copyable.

A lot depends on the dynamic range of the reciever frontend and first mixer (only topend dx rigs have narow filters in the first IF), the gain you can get in the seccond IF filters is more audio quitness and reduced AGC pumping two things that don't effect most soundcard operators.

In the end it is a personal choice that both have their good and bad sides.

[wa5tts]

Don't ya'll get it. The OF's must keep this stuff going for when they start the qrm they can blame it on the newbies. They will qrm folks just to start trouble on the bands. Mark my words, they have set the trap, just waiting for the techs to get on the air to have their fun. I believe the first time they hear a computer on cw they will do their level best to knock him off the air. Their hate and disgust runs deep as seen on here. It will start alright but it will not be from the techs.

[KA4DPO]

Darkness, I see only darkness and gloom. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[W3MIV]

Computer-read CW does not work very well when the signal being received is hand sent, but it often can work acceptably when the signal has been sent by another computer.

Scenario Thirteen:

As the restless hordes now gathering outside the gates burst upon our sacred commons, most of them will fly to the phone segments, filling those expanses with chatter and the occasional roger beep. Some will wax bored by this. Of those marked by lethargy, the fascination will dim for many and they will fall away, seeking solace in AOL Messenger, EchoLink or some other structure bereft of noise and interference. For some, however, that ennui might tend to a search for innovation.

Consider that some might venture lower in the bands, seeking comfort among the exotic conversations taking place among users shorn of voice. Only computers can converse with phase shifting and myriads of tones melded into a clamor unsuited to the human ear, but well crafted for ears of silicon.

Dallying in these digital fields might lead to a curiosity about the happenings deeper down in the bands, and the appearance of a regular cadence of dots and dashes could well lead to the discovery of a silicon fist that yields a perfect print, thus opening a further eye on the possibility that maybe, just maybe, this Morse thing was not something to be feared and hated after all.

As the fascination grows, the dots and dashes printing steadily down the waterfall, spitting character after character across the screen, the coupling of sound and character could become ever more familiar, leading eventually -- for some slowly, for others more swiftly -- to the development of the skill to recognize the aural letter when the computer fails to print accurately.

Over time, this skill honed by the challenge of fitting the puzzle together, will lead some of those curious minds to the awareness that the computer has become an unnecessary appurtenance, a bit of paraphernalia that might easily be jettisoned in favor of the simple ear.

Thus, my dear Dave, might CW be saved by the very keyboards and computers you dread.

HAL is here to help you, Dave...

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[ab1ga]

Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Jan. 30 2007,21:03)]"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" (Winston Churchill)
To which General Montgomery is said to have replied:

"I say, chap, why don't we fight them in Germany?"

(Paraphrased from Mad Magazine, from long ago, in the days of my impressionable youth.)

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[K7JEM]

Albert's got it.

[K0RGR]

I would much prefer that they at least try CW with a computer, rather than never use the mode at all. As long as they keep it under 30 WPM or so, I won't have any trouble copying their machine-sent code. Hopefully, they will not have too much trouble copying mine. We also have to advise newbies that injecting a tone into a SSB transmitter is not a type A1 emission - they need to directly key the radio from the computer. They need to wire up the RigBlaster to do that or build their own.

Hopefully, the computer CW types, if any, will find their own place to congregate. It won't take them long to figure out that copying code by ear is a lot better than trying to copy it with a machine. 80 meters will be a challenge due to the narrowness of the band. On 40 , I would hope they stay in the 7075-7125 region. On 15 and 10, there's plenty of room.

In reality, I expect to see a high percentage of newbies taking the Tech and General together. When they find out that SSB isn't the Nirvana they expected, many will look for something else. If we're lucky, it will be CW. If we're not, in the future, you'll be begging for a 'gentlemen's agreement' to keep the bottom 5 Khz. for CW.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (ab1ga @ Jan. 31 2007,07:12)]Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Jan. 30 2007,21:03)]"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" (Winston Churchill)
To which General Montgomery is said to have replied:

"I say, chap, why don't we fight them in Germany?"

(Paraphrased from Mad Magazine, from long ago, in the days of my impressionable youth.)

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
To which Gen. George Patton said "If you'd get your head out of your a$$, Bernard, you'd know I am already in Germany!"

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (N8CPA @ Jan. 31 2007,03:32)]FOOD FIGHT!
"Drunk, fat and stupid is no way to succeed in life son."
-Dean Wormer of "Animal House"

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Jan. 31 2007,07:28)]In reality, I expect to see a high percentage of newbies taking the Tech and General together. When they find out that SSB isn't the Nirvana they expected, many will look for something else. If we're lucky, it will be CW. If we're not, in the future, you'll be begging for a 'gentlemen's agreement' to keep the bottom 5 Khz. for CW.
Uh.... I was rather thinking of 15kHz. 5 kHz is precious little space.

The waterfall display that is designed for soundcard-based modes currently yields crap results in a pile-up of manually-sent CW. However, if the software evolved quite a bit further (along with a little evolution of the receiver hardware) it could present a nice-enough graphic to track the different ops within the reciever's response curve that all of us would add it to our toolbox.

Nevertheless, it would be nice to see the ARRL set a "considerate ham" policy to keep some bandspace for hand-generated code only.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Jan. 31 2007,08:28)]We also have to advise newbies that injecting a tone into a SSB transmitter is not a type A1 emission - they need to directly key the radio from the computer. They need to wire up the RigBlaster to do that or build their own.
§ 97.305 Authorized emission types.
(a) An amateur station may transmit
a CW emission on any frequency authorized
to the control operator. (except 60M)

Definitions:
(1) CW. International Morse code telegraphy
emissions having designators
with A, C, H, J or R as the first symbol;
1 as the second symbol; A or B as the
third symbol; and emissions J2A and
J2B.


Keying a tone into an SSB radio yields J2A, and while this is not A1A, it is functionally identical. It is totally legal anywhere CW is legal because, by definition, it is CW.

Joe

[N8CPA]

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Jan. 31 2007,11:47)]Quote[/b] (N8CPA @ Jan. 31 2007,03:32)]FOOD FIGHT!
"Drunk, fat and stupid is no way to succeed in life son."
-Dean Wormer of "Animal House"
"Oh boy! This is going to be great!"--Flounder.

[AG3Y]

I love CW, but have been spending much more time working SSTV and the digital soundcard modes (PSK-31 MFSK, etc ) WHY ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif Because the soundcard modes simply work better than CW IF ( BIG IF ! ! ! ) you are working keyboard to keyboard . It should only take a week or two of experience to teach this truth to the "newbies" .

I am not afraid of an influx of CW keyboarders. I am a bit concerned, however, that the hand-sent CW operators will feel a squeeze from computer operators that want to take up more and more of the space that is exclusively set aside for the CW/digital modes. Will CW operators migrate up into the shared CW/SSB frequencies ? It is legal, but will it be ethical?

Some questions that remain to be answered.

73, Jim

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 31 2007,08:53)]Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Jan. 31 2007,08:28)]We also have to advise newbies that injecting a tone into a SSB transmitter is not a type A1 emission - they need to directly key the radio from the computer. They need to wire up the RigBlaster to do that or build their own.
§ 97.305 Authorized emission types.
(a) An amateur station may transmit
a CW emission on any frequency authorized
to the control operator. (except 60M)

Definitions:
(1) CW. International Morse code telegraphy
emissions having designators
with A, C, H, J or R as the first symbol;
1 as the second symbol; A or B as the
third symbol; and emissions J2A and
J2B.


Keying a tone into an SSB radio yields J2A, and while this is not A1A, it is functionally identical. It is totally legal anywhere CW is legal because, by definition, it is CW.

Joe
We've had this argument on here before.

A1A and J2A are NOT functionally equivalent.

Any phase noise or distortion in the soundcard plus any crossover, or intermod distortion in the audio chain of the transmitter gets added into the signal bandwidth of a J2A transmission. If this is then run through a non-linear amplifier results can turn out to be even worse. Close in phase noise in the VFO can cause other intermod effects. ALC modulation of the waveform through negative feedback applied to the audio chain can add in even more distortion yet.

An A1A transmission needs only worry about the close in phase noise generated by the frequency determining component in the transmitter.

The two modes are NOT equivalent. You do a dis-service to the newbies by misleading them into thinking that they are. While the FCC may allow J2A where A1A is allowed, that doesn't make them functionally equivalent. Using your logic I could say that AM and FM are functionally equivalent because the FCC classes them both as phone and allows them both on 2m. In fact, they are NOT functionally equivalent.

tim ab0wr

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Jan. 31 2007,13:02)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 31 2007,08:53)]Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Jan. 31 2007,08:28)]We also have to advise newbies that injecting a tone into a SSB transmitter is not a type A1 emission - they need to directly key the radio from the computer. They need to wire up the RigBlaster to do that or build their own.
§ 97.305 Authorized emission types.
(a) An amateur station may transmit
a CW emission on any frequency authorized
to the control operator. (except 60M)

Definitions:
(1) CW. International Morse code telegraphy
emissions having designators
with A, C, H, J or R as the first symbol;
1 as the second symbol; A or B as the
third symbol; and emissions J2A and
J2B.


Keying a tone into an SSB radio yields J2A, and while this is not A1A, it is functionally identical. It is totally legal anywhere CW is legal because, by definition, it is CW.

Joe
We've had this argument on here before.

A1A and J2A are NOT functionally equivalent.

Any phase noise or distortion in the soundcard plus any crossover, or intermod distortion in the audio chain of the transmitter gets added into the signal bandwidth of a J2A transmission. If this is then run through a non-linear amplifier results can turn out to be even worse. Close in phase noise in the VFO can cause other intermod effects. ALC modulation of the waveform through negative feedback applied to the audio chain can add in even more distortion yet.

An A1A transmission needs only worry about the close in phase noise generated by the frequency determining component in the transmitter.

The two modes are NOT equivalent. You do a dis-service to the newbies by misleading them into thinking that they are. While the FCC may allow J2A where A1A is allowed, that doesn't make them functionally equivalent. Using your logic I could say that AM and FM are functionally equivalent because the FCC classes them both as phone and allows them both on 2m. In fact, they are NOT functionally equivalent.

tim ab0wr
But AM and FM are not functionally equivalent. They are totally different.

A J2A signal would be virtually indistinguishable from an A1A signal, or at least it could be. Both are the equivalent of a single frequency carrier being turned on and off. Many modern rigs use this method to generate CW, they don't use a separate form of CW generation.

Check it out.

Joe

[al7n]

Quote[/b] ]Dallying in these digital fields might lead to a curiosity about the happenings deeper down in the bands, and the appearance of a regular cadence of dots and dashes could well lead to the discovery of a silicon fist that yields a perfect print, thus opening a further eye on the possibility that maybe, just maybe, this Morse thing was not something to be feared and hated after all.

As the fascination grows, the dots and dashes printing steadily down the waterfall, spitting character after character across the screen, the coupling of sound and character could become ever more familiar, leading eventually -- for some slowly, for others more swiftly -- to the development of the skill to recognize the aural letter when the computer fails to print accurately.

Over time, this skill honed by the challenge of fitting the puzzle together, will lead some of those curious minds to the awareness that the computer has become an unnecessary appurtenance, a bit of paraphernalia that might easily be jettisoned in favor of the simple ear.


Kind of like in the early days of landline telegraphy...
They used registers that embossed the code characters in dots and dashes on a strip of paper that was pulled through the machine by clockworks driven by a weight.

After some period of use of this machine, operators generally found they could decode the incoming signal by ear from listening to the clacking of the magnet armature of the register and just write down what the distant operator was sending...Soon the registers were junked in favor of a Morse "sounder" which was designed to be "read by ear"...

Those operators who developed this skill of "reading by sound" early on were soon in far more demand than those who had to use the register and tape as a crutch to make sense of the incoming code stream.....It was much faster and just as accurate.

Claims were of course made as to the "sound" method being subject to "mistakes" by the receiving operator...but investigtion soon showed that the mistakes, if any, were generally the fault of the operator SENDING, not the one doing the receiving......

How about that. #Those who ignore the lessons of History are doomed to repeat them....

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (al7n @ Jan. 31 2007,14:29)]Quote[/b] ]Dallying in these digital fields might lead to a curiosity about the happenings deeper down in the bands, and the appearance of a regular cadence of dots and dashes could well lead to the discovery of a silicon fist that yields a perfect print, thus opening a further eye on the possibility that maybe, just maybe, this Morse thing was not something to be feared and hated after all.

As the fascination grows, the dots and dashes printing steadily down the waterfall, spitting character after character across the screen, the coupling of sound and character could become ever more familiar, leading eventually -- for some slowly, for others more swiftly -- to the development of the skill to recognize the aural letter when the computer fails to print accurately.

Over time, this skill honed by the challenge of fitting the puzzle together, will lead some of those curious minds to the awareness that the computer has become an unnecessary appurtenance, a bit of paraphernalia that might easily be jettisoned in favor of the simple ear.


Kind of like in the early days of landline telegraphy...
They used registers that embossed the code characters in dots and dashes on a strip of paper that was pulled through the machine by clockworks driven by a weight.

After some period of use of this machine, operators generally found they could decode the incoming signal by ear from listening to the clacking of the magnet armature of the register and just write down what the distant operator was sending...Soon the registers were junked in favor of a Morse "sounder" which was designed to be "read by ear"...

Those operators who developed this skill of "reading by sound" early on were soon in far more demand than those who had to use the register and tape as a crutch to make sense of the incoming code stream.....It was much faster and just as accurate.

Claims were of course made as to the "sound" method being subject to "mistakes" by the receiving operator...but investigtion soon showed that the mistakes, if any, were generally the fault of the operator SENDING, not the one doing the receiving......

How about that. Those who ignore the lessons of History are doomed to repeat them....
Good thoughts by both.

When my daughter viewed the original reader invention and got to practice sending her name in the old spark gap as well as modern side -tone format in a display at the Smithsonian, she was hooked, and subsequently learned the code for herself, practically forcing me to make my third entry back into ham radio when she decided to get her own license.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 31 2007,13:11)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Jan. 31 2007,13:02)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 31 2007,08:53)]Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Jan. 31 2007,08:28)]We also have to advise newbies that injecting a tone into a SSB transmitter is not a type A1 emission - they need to directly key the radio from the computer. They need to wire up the RigBlaster to do that or build their own.
§ 97.305 Authorized emission types.
(a) An amateur station may transmit
a CW emission on any frequency authorized
to the control operator. (except 60M)

Definitions:
(1) CW. International Morse code telegraphy
emissions having designators
with A, C, H, J or R as the first symbol;
1 as the second symbol; A or B as the
third symbol; and emissions J2A and
J2B.


Keying a tone into an SSB radio yields J2A, and while this is not A1A, it is functionally identical. It is totally legal anywhere CW is legal because, by definition, it is CW.

Joe
We've had this argument on here before.

A1A and J2A are NOT functionally equivalent.

Any phase noise or distortion in the soundcard plus any crossover, or intermod distortion in the audio chain of the transmitter gets added into the signal bandwidth of a J2A transmission. If this is then run through a non-linear amplifier results can turn out to be even worse. Close in phase noise in the VFO can cause other intermod effects. ALC modulation of the waveform through negative feedback applied to the audio chain can add in even more distortion yet.

An A1A transmission needs only worry about the close in phase noise generated by the frequency determining component in the transmitter.

The two modes are NOT equivalent. You do a dis-service to the newbies by misleading them into thinking that they are. While the FCC may allow J2A where A1A is allowed, that doesn't make them functionally equivalent. Using your logic I could say that AM and FM are functionally equivalent because the FCC classes them both as phone and allows them both on 2m. In fact, they are NOT functionally equivalent.

tim ab0wr
But AM and FM are not functionally equivalent. They are totally different.

A J2A signal would be virtually indistinguishable from an A1A signal, or at least it could be. Both are the equivalent of a single frequency carrier being turned on and off. Many modern rigs use this method to generate CW, they don't use a separate form of CW generation.

Check it out.

Joe
As I continue to point out, a signal's emission type CAN NOT be classified by the receiver. It can only be classified at the transmitting end.

Would you call PM and FM functionally equivalent? You can't tell the difference at the receiving end. (hint: check out the mathematical derivation of the two before answering)

I repeat, you are doing a disservice to the newbies in propagating this myth.

They are NOT equivalent to turning a single frequency off and on - I pointed out why in my message and you totally ignored why.

What modern rigs do you know of that generate CW by feeding an audio tone into their audio chain?

I don't have to check out any of mine -- NONE DO.

I don't have a "modern" DSP transmitter but I would not expect to see CW generated by synthesizing an audio tone to be fed into the "transmitting software". Generating an RF signal directly is too simple, allowing the rest of the computing cycles in the DSP to be used in forming the waveshape to minimize keyclicks.

I don't know why some amateurs continue to propagate the myth that A1A and J2A are the same thing. They are not.

tim ab0wr

[K7JEM]

Hey Tim, you're a smart guy. Look it up. See if I am wrong. But post something other than your own though process to back it up.

Not all radios create CW that way, but some do. And they're allowed on HF, and the signal they generate is no different than that of a true CW transmitter. Check the math.

And if a single tone is modulating an FM or PM radio, ala code, then the resulting output will be the same, if the deviation is the same. So, in that instance, FM and PM are identical.

If you don't believe that, you can check it out also.

Joe

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (K7JBQ @ Jan. 30 2007,17:26)]Proving once again you can lead a horse to drink, but you can't make him water.

73,
Bill
"You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think!"

Dorothy Parker

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 31 2007,21:43)]Hey Tim, you're a smart guy. Look it up. See if I am wrong. But post something other than your own though process to back it up.

Not all radios create CW that way, but some do. And they're allowed on HF, and the signal they generate is no different than that of a true CW transmitter. Check the math.

And if a single tone is modulating an FM or PM radio, ala code, then the resulting output will be the same, if the deviation is the same. So, in that instance, FM and PM are identical.

If you don't believe that, you can check it out also.

BTW, exactly what radios are the "some do" that you mention as using audio tones to generate CW? The KWM2 is the only one I know of and it is not known as a "good" CW rig.

Joe
Do you really want me to post the math to show the differences in how each are generated (A1A, J2A, PM, FM)? I can certainly do so. Is that what it will take for you to admit you are propagating a myth to the newbies in this service?

This isn't just my own thought processes, it is baseline physics and math.

A1A and J2A are not functionally equivalent. PM and FM are not functionally equivalent.

Your logic would have an over-the-road diesel tractor and a Geo Metro being functionally equivalent. They both have engines, drive trains, and bodies so they must be functionally equivalent. I don't think too many people are going to buy that logic.

tim ab0wr

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 01 2007,09:15)]Your logic would have an over-the-road diesel tractor and a Geo Metro being functionally equivalent.
They are functionally equivalent. Look up the definition of "functional."

You are counting angels on the head of a pin.

[K7JEM]

Tim, I'm not going to argue with you any more. I would never be able to "prove" anything to you, since you know everything already. You can research a single tone modulating both an FM and a PM transmitter to see what the differences are. You can also research a single tone modulating an SSB TX, and compare that to a CW signal. They are generated differently, but come out essentially the same. That is why the FCC permits its use in the CW only sections.

Anyone that is interested can look it up, and come to their own conclusions.

Joe

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 01 2007,06:52)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 01 2007,09:15)]Your logic would have an over-the-road diesel tractor and a Geo Metro being functionally equivalent.
They are functionally equivalent. Look up the definition of "functional."

You are counting angels on the head of a pin.
More like a Mack truck with a trailer, and a Volvo truck with a trailer.

The functionality of a metro is different than that of a truck, unless you are just transporting passengers.

Joe

[PE1RDW]

An interesting sidenote about fm/pm, when it is not know if it is fm or pm then ITU designation alows it to be clasified as fm.
This goes for all phase and frequentie domain modes not just analog voice.
offcourse lowbaud wide shift FSK is easely spotted but minimumshift multi frequenties keying becomes harder to seperate from multi phase shift keying.

But I'm side tracking here, we where talking about J2A vs A1A.
Yes they are generated differently but done right gives the same spectrum.
Just a quick rundown of doing it right:
1) don't overdrive the audio stages, there should be zero clipping.
2) don't alow any ALC action, this results in clipping in the RF stages.

with these two things in mind J2A will produce a single RF trace and depending on the CW shaper and software used can even be cleaner then A1A (think key clicks)

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ Feb. 01 2007,07:51)]An interesting sidenote about fm/pm, when it is not know if it is fm or pm then ITU designation alows it to be clasified as fm.
This goes for all phase and frequentie domain modes not just analog voice.
offcourse lowbaud wide shift FSK is easely spotted but minimumshift multi frequenties keying becomes harder to seperate from multi phase shift keying.

But I'm side tracking here, we where talking about J2A vs A1A.
Yes they are generated differently but done right gives the same spectrum.
Just a quick rundown of doing it right:
1) don't overdrive the audio stages, there should be zero clipping.
2) don't alow any ALC action, this results in clipping in the RF stages.

with these two things in mind J2A will produce a single RF trace and depending on the CW shaper and software used can even be cleaner then A1A (think key clicks)
Yes. In other words, your computer interface and radio settings will be similar or the same as if you were running PSK31.

I totally agree with you. The software can make or break the signal. Crummy software and an improper level to the TX will result in a signal worse than A1. Good software and level setup could result in a better signal than straight A1.

Joe

[PE1RDW]

Quote[/b] (W0LPQ @ Feb. 01 2007,17:21)]As Glen, K9STH has pointed out several times to guys who wanted to do "CW" in the CW bands on VHF using a tone were reminded ... it is NOT CW, but straight AM Phone.

If you put your receiver to AM and hear the tone, it is not CW, but AM phone modulated by a tone. #In true CW, you will never hear a tone in the AM mode.

Bill, W0LPQ/9
Who was talking about AM? tone injected in AM is A2A, tone injected in SSB is J2A, huge difference.

for those curious, tone injected in FM is F2A.

[WA7KKP]

The hams said the same thing when SSB overtook AM in the 50's and 60's . . .

The same thing was said when FM and repeaters invaded our mostly unused VHF/UHF spectrum in the 70's.

You'll still have your slivers of spectrum -- and they'll have their forty acres. Don't worry -- I don't think they'll come down and kibbutz untill they learn . . .

Morse Code.

Gary WA7KKP

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ Feb. 01 2007,07:51)]An interesting sidenote about fm/pm, when it is not know if it is fm or pm then ITU designation alows it to be clasified as fm.
This goes for all phase and frequentie domain modes not just analog voice.
offcourse lowbaud wide shift FSK is easely spotted but minimumshift multi frequenties keying becomes harder to seperate from multi phase shift keying.

But I'm side tracking here, we where talking about J2A vs A1A.
Yes they are generated differently but done right gives the same spectrum.
Just a quick rundown of doing it right:
1) don't overdrive the audio stages, there should be zero clipping.
2) don't alow any ALC action, this results in clipping in the RF stages.

with these two things in mind J2A will produce a single RF trace and depending on the CW shaper and software used can even be cleaner then A1A (think key clicks)
ALC will do more than cause clipping in the RF stages.

It actually imposes a low frrequency modulation on the waveform as the power is varied up and down. This can mix in non-linear stages to produce both in-channel and adjacent channel interference depending on the products.

If the ALC action is applied to an amplfier stage abruptly (think square wave) you can generate interference products a long way from the intended signal (think key clicks).

Albert -- if you think a diesel over-the-road tractor is functionally equivalent to a Geo Metro your definition of "functionally" equivalent is much different than mine.

If you think an audio tone put into a SSB transmitter is functionally equivalent to a keyed frequency generator your definition of functionally equivalent is much different than mine.

Joe - it is not a matter of me knowing *everything*. That is nothing more than a veiled ad hominem argument. The fact that you cannot reference a single modern transmitter that generates CW by injecting an audio tone into the microphone circuits -- WHEN YOU CLAIMED SOME DO -- tells me more than anything else you say.

The math describing J2A and A1A by itself tells me they are not functionally equivalent.

Andre, even when done right the spectrum of J2A and A1A *will* be different. J2A generates TWO sidebands, one of which must be filtered out. No matter how well you do this it is not functionally equivalent to having one single frequency generated as in A1A. While the opposite sideband may be well down from the fundamental it doesn't disappear and, depending on propagation and transmitter power level, could be quite strong at long distances away from the transmitter.

Folks, you can tell me how stupid I am all day long, it won't matter one iota. J2A does NOT generate one single frequency as does A1A - look at the math if you don't believe me. That makes the two NOT functionally equivalent. Never has been, never will be, not until we get filters with infinite stopband attenuation. Propagating the myth that they are the same thing is doing a disservice to those "newbie" appliance operators that don't understand the theory and will take you at your word.

PM and FM are closer to being functionally equivalent but, to me at least, that is like saying a train carrying a tractor-trailer between towns is functionally equivalent to a tractor pulling the trailer between towns. Yes, they both get the trailer to the other town but they are hardly "functionally equivalent".

tim ab0wr

[K7JEM]

IC-706

What is the difference between FM and PM when modulated with a sine wave of the same frequency and deviation?

Joe

[PE1RDW]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Feb. 02 2007,16:36)]IC-706

What is the difference between FM and PM when modulated with a sine wave of the same frequency and deviation?

Joe
if memory serves me right it's 90 degrees.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ Feb. 02 2007,08:18)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Feb. 02 2007,16:36)]IC-706

What is the difference between FM and PM when modulated with a sine wave of the same frequency and deviation?

Joe
if memory serves me right it's 90 degrees.
I don't know if you were jesting here or not but this is not far off.

PM varies frequency directly as a result of varying the phase of the carrier based on the modulating signal. In FM the phase of the carrier (i.e. the frequency) is varied based on the derivative of the modulating signal. (df(t)/dt)sin(t) = cos(t) (i.e. a 90 deg difference)

The changes to the carrier from each are neither linear or equal. It is a subtle difference but a receiver designed to receive FM will produce distorted audio if fed PM. A PM receiver will produce distorted audio if fed FM. The distortion is usually not perceptible to the human ear but can cause problems when trying to send high speed data. It is certainly measurable.

That's why I said they are closer to being functionally equivalent but they still aren't quite there. You can't just substitute one for the other without some kinds of effects being seen depending on the application.

tim ab0wr

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 03 2007,07:55)]PM varies frequency directly as a result of varying the phase of the carrier based on the modulating signal. In FM the phase of the carrier (i.e. the frequency) is varied based on the derivative of the modulating signal. (df(t)/dt)sin(t) = cos(t) (i.e. a 90 deg difference)

The changes to the carrier from each are neither linear or equal. It is a subtle difference but a receiver designed to receive FM will produce distorted audio if fed PM. A PM receiver will produce distorted audio if fed FM. The distortion is usually not perceptible to the human ear but can cause problems when trying to send high speed data. It is certainly measurable.

That's why I said they are closer to being functionally equivalent but they still aren't quite there. You can't just substitute one for the other without some kinds of effects being seen depending on the application.

tim ab0wr
That's most likely true, if you are dealing with more than one tone.

For a single modulated tone, they are identical. I don't think they could be told apart by a spectrum analyzer or a RX. That is what I mean by functionally equivalent.

Complex tones or voice are a different story.

Joe

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Feb. 03 2007,08:21)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 03 2007,07:55)]PM varies frequency directly as a result of varying the phase of the carrier based on the modulating signal. In FM the phase of the carrier (i.e. the frequency) is varied based on the derivative of the modulating signal. (df(t)/dt)sin(t) = cos(t) (i.e. a 90 deg difference)

The changes to the carrier from each are neither linear or equal. It is a subtle difference but a receiver designed to receive FM will produce distorted audio if fed PM. A PM receiver will produce distorted audio if fed FM. The distortion is usually not perceptible to the human ear but can cause problems when trying to send high speed data. It is certainly measurable.

That's why I said they are closer to being functionally equivalent but they still aren't quite there. You can't just substitute one for the other without some kinds of effects being seen depending on the application.

tim ab0wr
That's most likely true, if you are dealing with more than one tone.

For a single modulated tone, they are identical. I don't think they could be told apart by a spectrum analyzer or a RX. That is what I mean by functionally equivalent.

Complex tones or voice are a different story.

Joe
The modulation index in PM is fixed regardless of modulating frequency. In FM, the modulation index depends upon the modulating frequency.

An FM receiver, being fed a PM signal, will put out an audio tone whose amplitude is dependent upon the audio tone frequency. A PM receiver will put out a fixed amplitude signal regardless of the modulating frequency.

Even for a single tone, therefore, the received audio will be different depending upon how it is generated and how it is detected. YOU may call that functionally equivalent, I do not.

I suppose it is feasible that you could run into a coincidence where the FM audio output has exactly the same level as the PM audio output by picking just the right audio tone to use for any specific combination of transmitters and receivers but it would be just that, a coincidence. Therefore you CAN tell from the RX signal #which is being used (assuming calibrated system gains) even if a spectrum analyzer won't show you directly.

I'll repeat it once again. There is a popular myth that a SSB transmitter being fed a single tone is the same as a Continuous Wave transmitter. The spectrums generated and transmitted *are* different. The spectrums received are different. That is what makes this a myth. The same thing applies to the myth that FM and PM are the same. They are not. The spectrums generated and transmitted *are* different. The spectrums received are different. That is what makes this a myth.

Emission designators are NOT based on what the reciever sees but upon how the signal is generated. If there is a difference in the generated signal then the signals are not functionally equivalent. The differences may be small enough for a specific cross-use to work adequately, they may not. Using a Navistar over-the-road tractor as a taxi may work but it doesn't make the truck functionally equivalent to a Checker cab.

If you don't know and understand the differences then you cannot make adequate judgements on whether one can be substituted for the other. I can assure you that a plethora of SSB transmitters doing CW using injected audio tones *would* result in more interference in the 20m CW band from the coincident "opposite" sideband that is not fully eliminated. That is not likely to happen in the VHF FM portions of the bands because of the channel separation that is already enforced through gentlemen's agreement. Nor is there likely to be enough difference in volume between FM and PM for any specific audio tone to cause any difficulties.

In either case, propagating "popular myths" is not what we should be doing for the newbies, especially those applicance operator newbies we are going to see because of the lowering of test requirements over the coming years. As Elmers we have a responsibility to teach the newbies appropriate theories, not incorrect "myths".

tim ab0wr

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 03 2007,10:14)]I suppose it is feasible that you could run into a coincidence where the FM audio output has exactly the same level as the PM audio output by picking just the right audio tone to use for any specific combination of transmitters and receivers but it would be just that, a coincidence. Therefore you CAN tell from the RX signal which is being used (assuming calibrated system gains) even if a spectrum analyzer won't show you directly.
If you are running a single sine wave to modulate an FM or PM radio, and set that tone level to produce a 3KHz (or whatever) deviation, then that signal will look the same on a service monitor, or a spectrum analyzer, between the two radios.. There is no coincidence factor, it always works that way. If you vary the audio tone frequency, then deviation will change with the frequency on a PM TX, and stay the same on an FM TX. This is well known. But at any frequency within the range of the modulator, a level can be found to match the two.

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 03 2007,10:14)]
I'll repeat it once again. There is a popular myth that a SSB transmitter being fed a single tone is the same as a Continuous Wave transmitter. The spectrums generated and transmitted *are* different. The spectrums received are different. That is what makes this a myth. The same thing applies to the myth that FM and PM are the same. They are not. The spectrums generated and transmitted *are* different. The spectrums received are different. That is what makes this a myth.
The only differences that I can see would be a suppressed carrier, and a suppressed sideband, which would both be 40+ dB down, or so. Yes the A1A emission wouldn't have that, but it's no different than is generated with SSB or PSK.

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 03 2007,10:14)]
Emission designators are NOT based on what the reciever sees but upon how the signal is generated. If there is a difference in the generated signal then the signals are not functionally equivalent. The differences may be small enough for a specific cross-use to work adequately, they may not. Using a Navistar over-the-road tractor as a taxi may work but it doesn't make the truck functionally equivalent to a Checker cab.

If you don't know and understand the differences then you cannot make adequate judgements on whether one can be substituted for the other. I can assure you that a plethora of SSB transmitters doing CW using injected audio tones *would* result in more interference in the 20m CW band from the coincident "opposite" sideband that is not fully eliminated. That is not likely to happen in the VHF FM portions of the bands because of the channel separation that is already enforced through gentlemen's agreement. Nor is there likely to be enough difference in volume between FM and PM for any specific audio tone to cause any difficulties.
The truck/taxi comparison is not very accurate. More like two different brands of truck, or taxis. They are much more similar than they are different. A person receiving code sent by J2A is not likely to notice any difference than code sent by A1A. That is functional equivalence, and that is why it is permitted by the FCC in areas where CW is allowed. That is why the definition of CW includes A1A and J2A, since both are virtually identical, with the exception of the suppressed carrier and opposite sideband, which run at about one ten-thousandths of the output power. This is small enough to be negligible in most operations.

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 03 2007,10:14)]
In either case, propagating "popular myths" is not what we should be doing for the newbies, especially those applicance operator newbies we are going to see because of the lowering of test requirements over the coming years. As Elmers we have a responsibility to teach the newbies appropriate theories, not incorrect "myths".

tim ab0wr
This is not a myth, it is fact. You can read part 97 and see if the FCC thinks that J2A is CW, and they do. Running CW this way on an HF rig is no different than running PSK, in fact the interface would be the same. If newbies can be trusted to run PSK, then they should be trusted to run CW in the same manner, and it works fine, once the levels and transmitter are set properly.

You need to try it sometime, and play around with FM and PM transmitters as well.

Joe

[ab0wr]

k7jemQuote[/b] ]The truck/taxi comparison is not very accurate. More like two different brands of truck, or taxis. They are much more similar than they are different. A person receiving code sent by J2A is not likely to notice any difference than code sent by A1A. That is functional equivalence, and that is why it is permitted by the FCC in areas where CW is allowed.

The person receiving it may not notice any difference. The person being interfered with by the opposite sideband WILL notice a difference. There just isn't any way to get around it. Even a 50db opposite sideband suppression will leave a 100 watt signal with a 1mW opposite sideband. That's considered QRP operation where I come from and is more than enough when propagation is good to cause interference. A 40db suppression leaves you with a 10mW signal and worse suppression goes even higher. If you are running more power it gets even worse.


Quote[/b] ] That is why the definition of CW includes A1A and J2A, since both are virtually identical, with the exception of the suppressed carrier and opposite sideband, which run at about one ten-thousandths of the output power. This is small enough to be negligible in most operations.

Ahhh, now functionally equivalent has morphed into being virtually identical. And you seem to be saying that QRP operation is "negligible" in most operations? Is that really true? I would argue that it is not, especially on CW where QRP operation is mostly found. Certainly opposite sideband suppression of 40db on a 10^^2 watt signal will still leave an output of 10mW. You may find that neglible in an area where QRP operation is likely to be found. I don't.



ab0wr:Quote[/b] ]In either case, propagating "popular myths" is not what we should be doing for the newbies, especially those applicance operator newbies we are going to see because of the lowering of test requirements over the coming years. As Elmers we have a responsibility to teach the newbies appropriate theories, not incorrect "myths".

tim ab0wr

Quote[/b] ]This is not a myth, it is fact. You can read part 97 and see if the FCC thinks that J2A is CW, and they do. Running CW this way on an HF rig is no different than running PSK, in fact the interface would be the same. If newbies can be trusted to run PSK, then they should be trusted to run CW in the same manner, and it works fine, once the levels and transmitter are set properly.

You need to try it sometime, and play around with FM and PM transmitters as well.

You are equivocating again. I have certainly not said J2A is not considered CW by the FCC. I have said that it is a myth that A1A and J2A are the same thing. They are not the same thing. While running CW using an injected audio signal may not be any different than using PSK that still doesn't make A1A and J2A the same thing. Remember that those who see "bad" PSK signals with multiple replications on the waterfall due to overdriving of the transmitter need to understand that they may very well be seeing only HALF of the interference being generated because they are not seeing the interference generated on the opposite sideband.

If a newbie takes YOUR claim that A1A and J2A are the same thing to heart they may never understand at all why they are generating interference.

You will NOT see that kind of interference from an A1A signal.

And I think that any reader of this thread will understand that your statement implyiing I don't know the difference between PM and FM *is* nothing more than an ad hominem attack.

tim ab0wr

[PE1RDW]

Luckely for Tim he doesn't have to worry about hordes of J2A signals because popular CW decoding/coding software alows A1A keying, if you have CAT interface you can still do one click QSYing.
Talking of A1 keying, anyone know why feldhell doesn't use the CW interface in mixw? I only found a dos software doing it that way.

[K7JEM]

Tim,

It really doesn't matter. Newbies can use it if they want, or use direct keying of the radio. Either way is acceptable practice and works.

While J2A is not A1A, it is legal, and totally compatible. If newbies or oldtimers want to run it, they can. They should be aware that there could be a problem with a signal operating right at their suppressed carrier freq, or at the opposite sideband freq. This will not be a problem 99+% of the time.

Other than that, have at it. Or better yet, attach your computer to your key input, but either way will work.

I think you know the difference between PM and FM, I just don't think you have much practical experience, especially with PM transmitters. I could be wrong.

Joe