TTY on CB?
 

If the FCC only permits voice communication on CB, doesn't that
prevent deaf people from using the band? I think TTY, as well as CW,
should be permitted for that reason alone. If it became a petition,
would it pass?






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Frank Gilliland wrote:

If the FCC only permits voice communication on CB, doesn't that
prevent deaf people from using the band? I think TTY, as well as CW,
should be permitted for that reason alone. If it became a petition,
would it pass?






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
deafness and cw hmmmm....

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
If the FCC only permits voice communication on CB, doesn't that
prevent deaf people from using the band? I think TTY, as well as CW,
should be permitted for that reason alone. If it became a petition,
would it pass?



The CW of course, would have to be done with a computer printing it out OR
via some sort of pulsating light or other means that they could "feel" to
detect the message being sent. As for it being passed, I think it could be -
if someone pressed the ADA laws, showing it to be discriminatory to those
who are deaf. Could make some interesting changes come about for CB! Never
know until you try........

cl

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:20:52 -0500, jim wrote
in :

deafness and cw hmmmm....


Light bulb? S-meter?





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
If the FCC only permits voice communication on CB, doesn't that
prevent deaf people from using the band?

Yup.

I think TTY, as well as CW,
should be permitted for that reason alone.

Interesting but I doubt it's all that practical for hearing impaired users.

For TTY you need a clear channel, i.e. one transmitter at a time. So how
often do you think that's going to happen and are CBer's displined enough
not to try and jam the TTY station?

For CW the same thing however you would need some expensive filters to get
more use out of a 10 KHz wide channel using a mode that needs anywhere from
300 to 500 Hz at most. The transmitting station needs a way to move it's
signal around on the channel etc. so more that one can use the extra
bandwidth. Using different tones for each station would work, but then you
still need the narrowband filters at each end to selectively filter the tone
for the one station you want to hear.

If it became a petition,
would it pass?

I don't think so from an operational stand point. Too many problems and
besides they would likely use "texting" on their new cell phone anyway. It
does what you proposed already.

--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Linux - The alternative OS to Micro$oft Windows

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 00:05:20 -0500, "Leland C. Scott" wrote:


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
If the FCC only permits voice communication on CB, doesn't that
prevent deaf people from using the band?

Yup.

I think TTY, as well as CW,
should be permitted for that reason alone.

Interesting but I doubt it's all that practical for hearing impaired users.

For TTY you need a clear channel, i.e. one transmitter at a time.


Good point. There are quite a few clear channels in my area at any one
time, and while I know that's not the case everywhere, I'm sure it's
true in a lot of places. There is also the squelch knob, and not every
CBer is out to DX. Maybe a channel could be unofficially designated
for use by hearing impaired CBers? Or authorization for the use of
between-channel spaces? Maybe CW would be permitted if sub-audible
and/or below 300 Hz like those old tone-loc systems?


So how
often do you think that's going to happen and are CBer's displined enough
not to try and jam the TTY station?


Another good point. I'm not sure how easy it is to jam TTY, but I do
know that those tone-decoder devices are pretty noise-resistant. That
sounds like it would make a good experiment.


For CW the same thing however you would need some expensive filters to get
more use out of a 10 KHz wide channel using a mode that needs anywhere from
300 to 500 Hz at most. The transmitting station needs a way to move it's
signal around on the channel etc. so more that one can use the extra
bandwidth. Using different tones for each station would work, but then you
still need the narrowband filters at each end to selectively filter the tone
for the one station you want to hear.


I was thinking about that, which is what prompted this idea. All it
would take to transmit is to attach an audio oscillator in SSB.
Receiving might be a bit more difficult, but using a fixed-frequency
audio filter and the clarifier knob you can pick up just about any CW
signal in the channel bandwidth. For a filter, you can run both sides
of a stereo equalizer in series, and it can even tune different audio
freqs. After that, all you would need is a tone detector with a light
bulb. So the most expensive piece of equipment is already made and is
pretty common, while the other two pieces could be built from a kit by
just about anyone with a soldering iron.

I'm sure there are other ways it could be done. But I think the
hardest part is hooking everything together.


If it became a petition,
would it pass?

I don't think so from an operational stand point. Too many problems and
besides they would likely use "texting" on their new cell phone anyway. It
does what you proposed already.


Well, voice cell phones haven't eliminated CB yet. And maybe the
problems could be addressed before the fact.....

There is another benefit I see from this: it might encourage some of
the more enthusiastic CBers to get a license instead of freebanding or
operating illegally. It may also encourage more QRM on the channels,
but I'd like to think positive.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:20:52 -0500, jim wrote
in :


deafness and cw hmmmm....



Light bulb? S-meter?


=----
would think those would be slow to react especially above 20 wpm.
LED or touch pad that announces vibrations.
either way the market would be so small it wouldn't make business sense.
now if a hobbyist were interested...

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:24:29 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

If the FCC only permits voice communication on CB, doesn't that
prevent deaf people from using the band? I think TTY, as well as CW,
should be permitted for that reason alone. If it became a petition,
would it pass?


No.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:35:45 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

For CW the same thing however you would need some expensive filters to get
more use out of a 10 KHz wide channel using a mode that needs anywhere from
300 to 500 Hz at most. The transmitting station needs a way to move it's
signal around on the channel etc. so more that one can use the extra
bandwidth. Using different tones for each station would work, but then you
still need the narrowband filters at each end to selectively filter the tone
for the one station you want to hear.


I was thinking about that, which is what prompted this idea. All it
would take to transmit is to attach an audio oscillator in SSB.
Receiving might be a bit more difficult, but using a fixed-frequency
audio filter and the clarifier knob you can pick up just about any CW
signal in the channel bandwidth. For a filter, you can run both sides
of a stereo equalizer in series, and it can even tune different audio
freqs. After that, all you would need is a tone detector with a light
bulb. So the most expensive piece of equipment is already made and is
pretty common, while the other two pieces could be built from a kit by
just about anyone with a soldering iron.


Congratulations! You've just re-invented AFSK.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 00:05:20 -0500, "Leland C. Scott" wrote:


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
If the FCC only permits voice communication on CB, doesn't that
prevent deaf people from using the band?

Yup.

I think TTY, as well as CW,
should be permitted for that reason alone.

Interesting but I doubt it's all that practical for hearing impaired
users.

For TTY you need a clear channel, i.e. one transmitter at a time.


Good point. There are quite a few clear channels in my area at any one
time, and while I know that's not the case everywhere, I'm sure it's
true in a lot of places. There is also the squelch knob, and not every
CBer is out to DX. Maybe a channel could be unofficially designated
for use by hearing impaired CBers? Or authorization for the use of
between-channel spaces? Maybe CW would be permitted if sub-audible
and/or below 300 Hz like those old tone-loc systems?


So how
often do you think that's going to happen and are CBer's displined enough
not to try and jam the TTY station?


Another good point. I'm not sure how easy it is to jam TTY, but I do
know that those tone-decoder devices are pretty noise-resistant. That
sounds like it would make a good experiment.


For CW the same thing however you would need some expensive filters to
get
more use out of a 10 KHz wide channel using a mode that needs anywhere
from
300 to 500 Hz at most. The transmitting station needs a way to move it's
signal around on the channel etc. so more that one can use the extra
bandwidth. Using different tones for each station would work, but then
you
still need the narrowband filters at each end to selectively filter the
tone
for the one station you want to hear.


I was thinking about that, which is what prompted this idea. All it
would take to transmit is to attach an audio oscillator in SSB.
Receiving might be a bit more difficult, but using a fixed-frequency
audio filter and the clarifier knob you can pick up just about any CW
signal in the channel bandwidth.

That was an idea I didn't consider, but sounds like it would work.

For a filter, you can run both sides
of a stereo equalizer in series, and it can even tune different audio
freqs.

The stereo equalizer idea wouldn't work, bandwidth isn't narrow enough.
However a cheap DSP based single frequency audio band filter would do the
job. As cheap as these things, DSP chips, have become it shouldn't be a big
deal.

After that, all you would need is a tone detector with a light
bulb. So the most expensive piece of equipment is already made and is
pretty common, while the other two pieces could be built from a kit by
just about anyone with a soldering iron.

The detector, indicator, device could be incorporated in to the DSP filter
assembly.


I'm sure there are other ways it could be done. But I think the
hardest part is hooking everything together.


If it became a petition,
would it pass?

I don't think so from an operational stand point. Too many problems and
besides they would likely use "texting" on their new cell phone anyway.
It
does what you proposed already.


Well, voice cell phones haven't eliminated CB yet. And maybe the
problems could be addressed before the fact.....

There is another benefit I see from this: it might encourage some of
the more enthusiastic CBers to get a license instead of freebanding or
operating illegally. It may also encourage more QRM on the channels,
but I'd like to think positive.

It is something to think about anyway.

--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Linux - The alternative OS to Micro$oft Windows

"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
The detector, indicator, device could be incorporated in to the DSP
filter assembly.

I've seen your coax run to your rented roof-top cell phone antenna,
aol-boi.

http://img205.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img2...can00036bx.jpg

Nice job, Lee C.

Steveo wrote:
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
The detector, indicator, device could be incorporated in to the DSP
filter assembly.

I've seen your coax run to your rented roof-top cell phone antenna,
aol-boi.

http://img205.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img2...can00036bx.jpg

Nice job, Lee C.

Shut up stalker-boi.

"No I Am Not Him" wrote:
Steveo wrote:
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
The detector, indicator, device could be incorporated in to the DSP
filter assembly.

I've seen your coax run to your rented roof-top cell phone antenna,
aol-boi.

http://img205.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img2...can00036bx.jpg

Nice job, Lee C.

Shut up stalker-boi.

Welcome back, Mr Kotter.

172.158

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:15:46 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :

snip
For a filter, you can run both sides
of a stereo equalizer in series, and it can even tune different audio
freqs.

The stereo equalizer idea wouldn't work, bandwidth isn't narrow enough.
However a cheap DSP based single frequency audio band filter would do the
job. As cheap as these things, DSP chips, have become it shouldn't be a big
deal.


Just for kicks I tried an old Rat Shack 10-channel (left and right
channels in series) while tuned to a CW pileup on 80m. Worked OK, you
could differentiate one tone from another, but it passed a lot of
noise. I also tried a 31-channel Sunn but the thing broke out into
oscillation...:-0 Maybe stereo equalizers aren't such a good idea.


After that, all you would need is a tone detector with a light
bulb. So the most expensive piece of equipment is already made and is
pretty common, while the other two pieces could be built from a kit by
just about anyone with a soldering iron.

The detector, indicator, device could be incorporated in to the DSP filter
assembly.


Come to think about it, how about just a 567 or 4046? Either chip
would probably do it as long as the radio doesn't drift too much. And
if I'm not mistaken, both have a VFO on the chip. So a CW 'adapter'
could be a single-chip project -- no DSP required.

But I see a big problem -- there will no doubt be some numbskull who
would turn up the oscillator all the way and key up in AM on a radio
with a disabled limiter. Gawd, think of the splatter something like
that could cause.....






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Steveo" wrote in message
...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
The detector, indicator, device could be incorporated in to the DSP
filter assembly.

I've seen your coax run to your rented roof-top cell phone antenna,
aol-boi.

18,000 + look ups on QRZ and still counting, and I don't even do HF. 8-))

--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Linux - The alternative OS to Micro$oft Windows

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:15:46 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :

snip
For a filter, you can run both sides
of a stereo equalizer in series, and it can even tune different audio
freqs.

The stereo equalizer idea wouldn't work, bandwidth isn't narrow enough.
However a cheap DSP based single frequency audio band filter would do the
job. As cheap as these things, DSP chips, have become it shouldn't be a
big
deal.


Just for kicks I tried an old Rat Shack 10-channel (left and right
channels in series) while tuned to a CW pileup on 80m. Worked OK, you
could differentiate one tone from another, but it passed a lot of
noise. I also tried a 31-channel Sunn but the thing broke out into
oscillation...:-0 Maybe stereo equalizers aren't such a good idea.


After that, all you would need is a tone detector with a light
bulb. So the most expensive piece of equipment is already made and is
pretty common, while the other two pieces could be built from a kit by
just about anyone with a soldering iron.

The detector, indicator, device could be incorporated in to the DSP
filter
assembly.


Come to think about it, how about just a 567 or 4046? Either chip
would probably do it as long as the radio doesn't drift too much. And
if I'm not mistaken, both have a VFO on the chip. So a CW 'adapter'
could be a single-chip project -- no DSP required.

Those two chips are just simple PLL building blocks. There isn't a way to do
any tone filtering as such unless you make the VFO frequency range vary
narrow which would have the same effect. The 4046 has a range and frequency
offset capability using just two resistors and a capacitor. You would want
to use the phase-frequency detector, not the simple XOR phase detector which
could lock on harmonics of the audio tone. That would be the chip to use.
The lock detect circuit could then be used as the visual signal device for
CW. Something this simple you could breadboard in an evening to see how it
works.

Here's some interesting links you may like to look over.

http://web.telia.com/~u85920178/conv/syn-info.htm#intro
http://web.telia.com/~u85920178/right_01.htm


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Linux - The alternative OS to Micro$oft Windows

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:40:53 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :

snip
Come to think about it, how about just a 567 or 4046? Either chip
would probably do it as long as the radio doesn't drift too much. And
if I'm not mistaken, both have a VFO on the chip. So a CW 'adapter'
could be a single-chip project -- no DSP required.

Those two chips are just simple PLL building blocks. There isn't a way to do
any tone filtering as such unless you make the VFO frequency range vary
narrow which would have the same effect.


That's the idea.


The 4046 has a range and frequency
offset capability using just two resistors and a capacitor. You would want
to use the phase-frequency detector, not the simple XOR phase detector which
could lock on harmonics of the audio tone. That would be the chip to use.
The lock detect circuit could then be used as the visual signal device for
CW. Something this simple you could breadboard in an evening to see how it
works.


Actually, it only took about 15 minutes, but it doesn't work. Capture
and release times are too erratic within the bandwidth, and any other
CW signals within about half an octave make the thing go spastic. It
-might- work if the loop filter Q could swing with the VCO freq, but
that ain't gonna happen with just a couple chips.

Setting a narrow capture bandwidth, and using the clarifier (or BFO)
for tuning, works pretty well. I also tried a state-variable with a
schmitt trigger. Discrimination was better; but high Q, cumulative
drift and fading made it difficult to get a clear copy.

I should add that it's been quite interesting trying to read Morse
with an LED..... after a few minutes it's almost hypnotic. I tried
different colors, and while a big green LED was the best it was still
irritating after about 10 minutes.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:40:53 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :

snip
Come to think about it, how about just a 567 or 4046? Either chip
would probably do it as long as the radio doesn't drift too much. And
if I'm not mistaken, both have a VFO on the chip. So a CW 'adapter'
could be a single-chip project -- no DSP required.

Those two chips are just simple PLL building blocks. There isn't a way to
do
any tone filtering as such unless you make the VFO frequency range vary
narrow which would have the same effect.


That's the idea.


The 4046 has a range and frequency
offset capability using just two resistors and a capacitor. You would
want
to use the phase-frequency detector, not the simple XOR phase detector
which
could lock on harmonics of the audio tone. That would be the chip to use.
The lock detect circuit could then be used as the visual signal device
for
CW. Something this simple you could breadboard in an evening to see how
it
works.


Actually, it only took about 15 minutes, but it doesn't work. Capture
and release times are too erratic within the bandwidth, and any other
CW signals within about half an octave make the thing go spastic.

Hummmm...., what did you use for the bandwidth? I would have picked
something like 800Hz at the VCO center frequency and a VCO range of 700 to
900 Hz. One thing the data books don't tell you is slapping a capacitor
across each of the two resistors for frequency span and offset helps a great
deal in settling down the loop. Seems like the VCO is some brands of chips
have stability problems. I've had to use that trick on some of my company's
high power inverter controls to get the switching frequency to lock on to
the load's tuned frequency when using the 4046 as a phase locked loop. Try
using something like a 0.001uf or smaller capacitor.

It
-might- work if the loop filter Q could swing with the VCO freq, but
that ain't gonna happen with just a couple chips.

They use those chips for some data transmission applications and they work
fine at rates higher that you would expect somebody to be sending CW. I
wouldn't give up on using the simple circuit just yet.


Setting a narrow capture bandwidth, and using the clarifier (or BFO)
for tuning, works pretty well. I also tried a state-variable with a
schmitt trigger. Discrimination was better; but high Q, cumulative
drift and fading made it difficult to get a clear copy.

What was drifting, the filter, the frequency of the tone being transmitted,
or the receiver's frequency causing the tone's frequency to change? Before
giving up on anything it would be prudent to find out what the problem
happens to be before saying it doesn't work. The problem may be easy to fix,
or it could be the equipment you used for the test isn't representative of
what could be used now days.


I should add that it's been quite interesting trying to read Morse
with an LED..... after a few minutes it's almost hypnotic. I tried
different colors, and while a big green LED was the best it was still
irritating after about 10 minutes.

There are hearing impaired Hams doing something like that for years. I guess
they just get use to it.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Linux - The alternative OS to Micro$oft Windows

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:56:44 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:40:53 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :

snip
Come to think about it, how about just a 567 or 4046? Either chip
would probably do it as long as the radio doesn't drift too much. And
if I'm not mistaken, both have a VFO on the chip. So a CW 'adapter'
could be a single-chip project -- no DSP required.

Those two chips are just simple PLL building blocks. There isn't a way to
do
any tone filtering as such unless you make the VFO frequency range vary
narrow which would have the same effect.


That's the idea.


The 4046 has a range and frequency
offset capability using just two resistors and a capacitor. You would
want
to use the phase-frequency detector, not the simple XOR phase detector
which
could lock on harmonics of the audio tone. That would be the chip to use.
The lock detect circuit could then be used as the visual signal device
for
CW. Something this simple you could breadboard in an evening to see how
it
works.


Actually, it only took about 15 minutes, but it doesn't work. Capture
and release times are too erratic within the bandwidth, and any other
CW signals within about half an octave make the thing go spastic.

Hummmm...., what did you use for the bandwidth? I would have picked
something like 800Hz at the VCO center frequency and a VCO range of 700 to
900 Hz.....


I meant that the circuit didn't work for tuning through the .3-3kHz
bandwidth. Once I narrowed the bandwidth and used the BFO for tuning
it worked fine.


snip
Setting a narrow capture bandwidth, and using the clarifier (or BFO)
for tuning, works pretty well. I also tried a state-variable with a
schmitt trigger. Discrimination was better; but high Q, cumulative
drift and fading made it difficult to get a clear copy.

What was drifting, the filter, the frequency of the tone being transmitted,
or the receiver's frequency causing the tone's frequency to change?


Probably a little bit from everything -- I'm chalking it up to a
cumulative drift effect.


Before
giving up on anything it would be prudent to find out what the problem
happens to be before saying it doesn't work. The problem may be easy to fix,
or it could be the equipment you used for the test isn't representative of
what could be used now days.


I really don't think it's worth the effort since the PLL can track any
minor drifting that would require retuning of a state-variable filter.


I should add that it's been quite interesting trying to read Morse
with an LED..... after a few minutes it's almost hypnotic. I tried
different colors, and while a big green LED was the best it was still
irritating after about 10 minutes.

There are hearing impaired Hams doing something like that for years. I guess
they just get use to it.


I did a web search and found that some of them use a vibrating pad. I
thought about hooking up a relay or buzzer and see how that works. But
since I'm not deaf, my perceptions are probably different than someone
who would use the device regularly. Maybe a 'universal' output will do
the trick. It could then be hooked up to a vibrator, LED, strobe, fog
machine, stun-gun..... or whatever.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:56:44 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:40:53 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :

snip
Come to think about it, how about just a 567 or 4046? Either chip
would probably do it as long as the radio doesn't drift too much.
And
if I'm not mistaken, both have a VFO on the chip. So a CW 'adapter'
could be a single-chip project -- no DSP required.

Those two chips are just simple PLL building blocks. There isn't a way
to
do
any tone filtering as such unless you make the VFO frequency range
vary
narrow which would have the same effect.


That's the idea.


The 4046 has a range and frequency
offset capability using just two resistors and a capacitor. You would
want
to use the phase-frequency detector, not the simple XOR phase detector
which
could lock on harmonics of the audio tone. That would be the chip to
use.
The lock detect circuit could then be used as the visual signal device
for
CW. Something this simple you could breadboard in an evening to see
how
it
works.


Actually, it only took about 15 minutes, but it doesn't work. Capture
and release times are too erratic within the bandwidth, and any other
CW signals within about half an octave make the thing go spastic.

Hummmm...., what did you use for the bandwidth? I would have picked
something like 800Hz at the VCO center frequency and a VCO range of 700
to
900 Hz.....


I meant that the circuit didn't work for tuning through the .3-3kHz
bandwidth. Once I narrowed the bandwidth and used the BFO for tuning
it worked fine.

Yeah, that's what I would have expected, the bandwidth was too wide.



snip
Setting a narrow capture bandwidth, and using the clarifier (or BFO)
for tuning, works pretty well. I also tried a state-variable with a
schmitt trigger. Discrimination was better; but high Q, cumulative
drift and fading made it difficult to get a clear copy.

What was drifting, the filter, the frequency of the tone being
transmitted,
or the receiver's frequency causing the tone's frequency to change?


Probably a little bit from everything -- I'm chalking it up to a
cumulative drift effect.


Before
giving up on anything it would be prudent to find out what the problem
happens to be before saying it doesn't work. The problem may be easy to
fix,
or it could be the equipment you used for the test isn't representative
of
what could be used now days.


I really don't think it's worth the effort since the PLL can track any
minor drifting that would require retuning of a state-variable filter.

I would think you could use the PLL directly by keeping the VCO frequency
range narrow. The loop filter doesn't have to be anything that complex,
state variable that is.




I should add that it's been quite interesting trying to read Morse
with an LED..... after a few minutes it's almost hypnotic. I tried
different colors, and while a big green LED was the best it was still
irritating after about 10 minutes.

There are hearing impaired Hams doing something like that for years. I
guess
they just get use to it.


I did a web search and found that some of them use a vibrating pad. I
thought about hooking up a relay or buzzer and see how that works. But
since I'm not deaf, my perceptions are probably different than someone
who would use the device regularly. Maybe a 'universal' output will do
the trick. It could then be hooked up to a vibrator, LED, strobe, fog
machine, stun-gun..... or whatever.

Universal plug for an output then let them connect whatever they want.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Linux - The alternative OS to Micro$oft Windows

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:55:46 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :

snip
I really don't think it's worth the effort since the PLL can track any
minor drifting that would require retuning of a state-variable filter.

I would think you could use the PLL directly by keeping the VCO frequency
range narrow. The loop filter doesn't have to be anything that complex,
state variable that is.


I tried the state variable filter as a stand-alone device, not as a
PLL filter. Although it might be interesting to see what happens when
it -is- used as a PLL filter -- probably get all kinds of FM and
intermod distortion......






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:55:46 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :

snip
I really don't think it's worth the effort since the PLL can track any
minor drifting that would require retuning of a state-variable filter.

I would think you could use the PLL directly by keeping the VCO frequency
range narrow. The loop filter doesn't have to be anything that complex,
state variable that is.


I tried the state variable filter as a stand-alone device, not as a
PLL filter. Although it might be interesting to see what happens when
it -is- used as a PLL filter -- probably get all kinds of FM and
intermod distortion......

The filter should control the speed of phase locking to some extent and will
also help to remove phase noise from the signal you're trying to lock too,
but for your use that doesn't really matter.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Linux - The alternative OS to Micro$oft Windows

quoting:
If the FCC only permits voice communication on CB, doesn't that
prevent deaf people from using the band? I think TTY, as well as CW,
should be permitted for that reason alone. If it became a petition,
would it pass?


Channel 23 is shared with radio control, which allows all kinds of
things. If you did it on 23, you just might be ok.