John Kasupski wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:40:58 -0700, Dave wrote:

Is it OK to use automated send/receive on the QRP CW bands? Is it even
possible to build something that doesn't generate a lot of spurious
emissions? Would it be easier to just learn code?

I didn't see any answers to these questions posted, so I'll have a go
at it. In order of their appearance:

I presume that by "automated send/receive" you are referring to the
use of a computer and software to send and receive CW, as opposed to
sending by hand and receiving by ear. This is "OK" as far as being
well within FCC rules (and again I have made an assumption that you
are in the USA and will be subject to FCC rules, based on your
apparently being a customer of DSL Extreme, a U.S. ISP).

There are, however, a few issues with this if you're going to be
operating QRP from portable locations. For example, you must power not
only your radio but also the computer you're using to send and receive
code. This kind of limits your operating to the life of the battery in
your laptop, unless you're going to haul a relatively large battery
around with you to power the lappy and radio.

Also, FWIW, it's not too difficult to tell the difference between
hand-sent code and code generated by a machine, and there are
unfortunately some snobbish types out there who will not answer you if
you're using machine-sent CW. These seem to be the same folks who
harbor grudges about codeless licenses and the best way for the rest
of us to deal with them is probably to just ignore them just as they
ignore others, continue to make contacts with those who are not code
test or license-class bigots, and not let them ruin our enjoyment of
the hobby...but one should be aware that these people are out there.

Is it possible to build something that doesn't generate a lot of
spurious emissions? Of course it is! Check out the Elecraft K2 for one
example. Or some of Ten-Tec's QRP stuff.

For that matter, there are many homebrew QRP CW rig designs scattered
around various web sites, and many QRP groups to query as to which
designs are worth building and which are better avoided for one reason
or another. Hook up with such a group - K3WWP has a decent list of
them on his website at the following URL:

http://home.alltel.net/johnshan/links_ss_qrpc.html

You might also find his page on QRP equipment helpful. Follow the link
on the left side of the page whose URL appears above. Anyway, hook up
with one or more of these groups, and pick the brains of the
experienced QRP ops there regarding QRP rig designs that are based on
sound engineering principles and are consistent with common amateur
radio practice - they're they guys with the experience and knowledge
to help you avoid dirty transmitter designs and steer you toward
something you'll be happy with and proud to put on the air.

As for whether it would be easier to just learn code - it would
certainly make it easier to operate in CW mode if you have a working
knowledge of the code. For one thing, it eliminates the dependency on
a computer or other electronic device - most of which have a difficult
time "decoding" received signals unless they are quite strong and are
well-keyed...and even if the signal is very strong, no decoder can
clean up a lousy "fist" at the sending end. However, the task of
learning the code is much easier for some people than it is for others
(it only took me about 28 years, some guys have needed a couple of
days to learn it), so in the end, the answer to this question depends
on how quickly and easily you can learn the code.

Hope this helps.

73 DE John Kasupski, KC2HMZ

Thanks. I learned Morse incorrectly in the Boy Scouts (dit-dah, dah,
dit-dit-dit, etc.) about 48 years ago. I will relearn it strictly by
sound and cadence, using that little MFJ doodad. I really would like to
use my Eee PC for some kind of extremely mobile, but sophisticated,
setup. Thank-you again.