RadioBanter - View Single Post - Question for the No coders : post from Kim

August 8th 03, 09:36 PM

(N2EY) wrote in
m:

Alun Palmer wrote in message
. ..
(N2EY) wrote in
om:

Alun Palmer wrote in message
. ..
(N2EY) wrote in
m:

Alun Palmer wrote in message
.. .
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
y.com:

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
"Phil Kane" wrote in
.net:

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 07:41:03 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote:

Very simple answer, Jim. The FCC has limited personnel
today. The few they
have simply don't have the time to sit around listening, as
code users pound out their incredibly slow conversations,
to catch violations.

For reasons that I disagreed with then and I disagree
with now, (but that's another story) the FCC' s
enforcement response is driven by complaints, not by
"Patrolling the Ether" (tm) as in days of yore.

How many complaints of amateur CW violations do you think
"Riley" gets? (Somebody pounding out "FU" in Morse on a
Touch-Tone (tm) pad on a repeater input does not count as
CW....)

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

So what do we call it then? I have certainly heard

(expletive deleted)

sent in
Morse on a repeater.

That's awful. I haven't heard anything that bad on the CW/data
subbands, though. Have you?

I really do only use phone, so I wouldn't know what was being sent
down there.

I can assure you that such things don't happen nearly so often (if
at all) on the CW subbands.

Anyone who doubts this is invited to listen for themselves.

Anything from an unidentified transmission to interference to
jamming for starters depending on the exact events. It
probably violates a number of FCC rules.

Let's see: Obscenity, failure to ID, jamming, unauthorized use of
a repeater. For starters.

The point is that Phil is trying to say that jamming in MCW
doesn't count as jamming in CW, which is like trying to say that
there's a vital difference between using FM or SSB to jam.

No, that's not the point at all.

The point is that hams actually using CW/Morse for communications
don't gather anywhere near as many enforcement actions as hams
using 'phone modes for communications. The difference is far more
than can be accounted for by the greater popularity of 'phone
modes.

Is there a CW equivalent of the W6NUT repeater, 14,313 or 3950?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Probably not.

That's my entire point.

I have, however, heard endless repeated CQ calls sent in CW
by US hams on top of DX phone ops who were innocently using their
phone subbands, that happen to be regarded as CW frequencies in
part 97.

Frequency? Date, Time?

40m, when I'm looking for stations listening up

40 m is a band, not a frequency. Big difference between plopping down
an SSB signal on 7030 and 7230.

I mean between 7040 and 7100, which is phone, except here.

I am
90% sure that it is deliberate jamming, and it is a long term
ongoing situation.

How do you know it is deliberate?

It's hard to be sure. Maybe the fact that the CQ calls go on
abnormally long is a clue, though.

Certainly a possibility. Long CQ isn't the best practice.

Perhaps the CQers could not hear the
DX 'phones.

They would probably claim that, either way

It could be true, however. The US power limit is 1500 W out. 40 meter
beams are common with the big guns. There can easily be a 30 dB
difference between how well you hear a 1500 W + beam at 100' CW sig
and how well he hears your 100 W and dipole SSB.

Perhaps the DX phones were on top of US CW ops innocently sending CQ
on frequencies that, by bandplan, are CW/digital.

Innocent/ignorant - a fine dividing line, isn't it?

Nope.

Of course, by bandplan, the frequencies are phone too, just there, not
here.

Which is the real heart of the problem. And it's being fixed.

I think you'll find it isn't being fixed. The ARRL bandplan is the only
one out of step, so nobody else is likely to change theirs,
notwithstanding Europe and some other areas getting 7100-7200 as
additional spectrum in 2007. All that will happen is that a DX window will
appear from 7150-7200, but the DX will continue to use phone everywhere
they use it now - indefinitely. Sorry to be the one to break that to you!

The FCC has definite criteria for deliberate interference. One
criterion is if a station allegedly being interfered with changes
frequency, and the alleged interferer changes frequency too.

Presumably the perpetrators are too ignorant to understand that
FCC rules end at the border?

Who are "the perpetrators" in that case?

The ones who are _not_ in QSO with anyone, who keep sending unanswered
CQs for five minutes at a time, who didn't send QRU? before calling.

Nobody sends QRU? before calling CQ. (It means "do you have anything
for me?")

The textbook procedure is to send QRL? ("Are you busy?") first. But
that's unnecessarily long. A simple "?" will do the trick, or the most
common "IE" (didit - dit), all of which have the same meaning. The
reason for the shorter inquiries is so that if the freq IS in use,
less gets messed up.

It is not uncommon for me to hear exchanges like this:

Station wishing to call CQ: "IE" ("Is the frequency in use?")

Station on freq, working station the wouldbe CQer cannot hear: "C"
("Yes")

Station wishing to call CQ: "SRI DE N2EY" ("sorry, bye, ID so you know
who it was")

I will try listening for IE. I was expecting a Q signal.

You are presuming guilt without adequate proof. Do you have any
evidence that the alleged violators could hear the alleged victims?

No, that would be impossible to prove

If you QSY and they follow, that's proof enough for the FCC.

Or
evidence that the alleged victims were using the frequency first,
rather than the other way around?

Yes, or at least I would have if I taped them.

Most CW ops use narrow filters - 500, 400, 250 Hz are common
choices.* Useless for 'phone, of course. The CQers may not have
realized how close they were to the DX 'phones. How much room should
a CW station give a weak 'phone station?

I'm not talking about co-channel here, I mean right on top.

"Right on top" is a lot of room. The CW signal needs maybe 250Hz tops,
the SSB ten times that.

Granted. To be more specific, the CW beat note sounds in the normal range,
i.e. 800 Hz +- when the SSB is tuned in. This of course would be what you
would get if they netted onto the SSB and then offset by their usual
amount.

Point is that what sounds like "right on top" may not sound that way
to the other guy.

It depends which side of the nominal carrier frequency the CW signal is
on. However, assuming my SSB filter is working, I would say they were low,
i.e. on the same side as the LSB sideband, or I would be filtering them
out. This also puts them almost in the middle of the SSB signal, doesn't
it?

Listen to a busy CW contest with a wide (AM bandwidth) rx and it
sounds like a pile of intentional inteference. Switch in appropriate
filters and you find that almost all of the stations have spaced
themselves so they don't overlap.

Neither am I
talking about weak phone stations, although they could be weak at some
other QTH.

That's another point.

Of course the DX 'phones could have switched to CW and answered the
CQers, then politely asked them to move.

But they didn't, did they?

*My Southgate Type 7 has two cascaded 8 pole 500 Hz crystal filters,
giving an effective bandwidth of less than 400 Hz and very steep
filter skirts. And it has an audio LC filter as well.

So, if say, you called QRU? on 7080 and there was a strong signal SSB
QSO in progress, would you be able to tell? This is a genuine
question.

I would listen first and steer clear of anyhting that sounds like SSB.
Then I'd send "IE" a few times to test the waters. If I heard
something start up when I did that, I'd move.

But usually I am below 7060. Above about 7060 is data and foreign SSB
country.

I
don't posses a CW filter.

One of the reasons some hams get turned off to CW is that they use
equipment that really isn't meant for the mode. Most HF rigs today are
primarily SSB rigs with CW tacked on. Some are pretty good, many are
awful.

If I need it I have an outboard audio filter (a Radio Shack DSP unit,
which is fairly basic and suffers from low audio output). I hadn't thought
about that when I said I had no CW filter. It tends to 'take off' on 20
with RF getting inside it, but it's OK on 40.

I am guessing you would hear something,though?

Depends on the situation. Usually SSB sounds like monkey chatter
through a narrow filter. But near the edges it can be very weak or
inaudible.

As I've explained, I think this is going on in the middle of the SSB sigs,
which is another reason to be suspicious

The best solution is for wide and narrow modes to have their own
subbands. They simply don't mix well.

Yes

A notch filter can remove a carrier or CW signal.

73 de Jim, N2EY

True, not that I have one, though

73 de Alun, N3KIP