|
One way to promote learning of code ...
"AaronJ" wrote in message ... John Smith I wrote: I don't use commercial ware. I once wrote a homebrew CW receive program in Atari Basic that actually did pretty well on my old 800XL (if the conditions and sending fist were pretty good). I have used and incorporated into C/C++ programs I have created myself. Wouldn't it be easier and more convenient if you simply "learned" how to copy it be ear? |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Stefan Wolfe wrote:
Personally, I like Farnsworth better than Morse. I use Farnsworth all the time and it seems that people who only use Morse have no problem copying my Farnsworth. Farnsworth violates the Morse code specifications! It is an abomination designed to destroy real Morse code. It has just about succeeded. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
why would someone use computer CW? I play with computer CW because it is fun to mess with. I enjoy computers and I enjoy CW so putting them together was just another way for me to enjoy the hobby. I've written programs for keyboarding, computer iambic keying using a mouse for a key, receiving, auto-logging, canned messages, QSO storage ect. These are all Basic programs (most in QBasic, some in VB1) and likely not up to the level of the professional programmers here but still they were fun to write, test, modify and use. Then I've built interfaces or in some cases with my old boxes (like my Atari or my 386) modified the computer to key my homebrew tube CW transmitters directly. What if everybody used computer CW If everybody used a computer for CW that would put an end to lousy fists... ;) What then would the world think of us :-) What would most of the world think of hams who use computer CW? Well most of the world can't copy CW so no problem there. But of course most of the world can copy hams on 75M and RRAP. So what do you think they think?? |
One way to promote learning of code ...
From: on Fri, Jan 12 2007 4:52 am
wrote: From: "Carl R. Stevenson" on Tues, Jan 9 2007 9:58 am "Dave Heil" wrote in message in a rerun, wrote: From: "Carl R. Stevenson" on Sun, Jan 7 2007 10:14 am [in case you've forgotten...possibly since the NCI web site didn't appear to know it until after a week had passed after the FCC announcement...just a deduction] You often make poor deductions, Leonard. Yes ... he does. I made an OBSERVATION, Carl. Looking at www.nocode.org every day for a week after the 15 Dec 06 FCC announcement. It wasn't a week after the Public Notice, but a couple of days, before it was posted to the NCI website (and a link to the Report and Order was posted within 24 hours of its release). Then why didn't it appear that soon on the "NCI website?" One that us earthpeople could read? The ARRL was posting about it the same day! Sounds like more than an OBSERVATION, Len. Hello, Carl. It's strange to see your reply under a pseudonym. Are you having an identity crisis? Are you ticked off that somebody posted it to RRAP before you did? No, Carl. I don't pretend to be a journalist. Why do you? One of the fundamental purposes/commitments of NCI was to be a single-purpose organization that would disappear when the Morse Code test went away. Job's done in the USA, it seems. Carl, that's what you've been saying on NCI for a long time. Suddenly, comes "word" from the "Chief" of NCI on "important news!" Allegedly "immediately" (more or less) "reported." The thread subject is "One way to promote learning of code ..." No snit, Carl? Really? I thought it was all about little "red-hatted monkeys" hopping about with tin cups looking for more federal welfare emotional supplements for their beloved morse code. Tsk, I must be mistaken...my bad... I was on Maui for 10 days on a combination of business and vacation, but modern technology (my EVDO card) alllowed me to access the internet wirelessly from my notebook :-) Wow! High-tech! insert a Robesin hyena-guffaw here You should have remarked about a fancy hotel with Internet connections in every room or something. You don't have a direct satellite telephone? [Iridium is up and working, ain't it?] Are you jealous, Len? Of Iridium? No, Carl. I have no need for any wireless computer connection right now. Carl, if I ever NEEDED a wireless computer connection I would buy the components and connect it up. Plenty of that equipment available at Fry's Electronics supermarket in Burbank just 10 minutes drive away. They have good lap-tops for $500...we are thinking of getting one again... In the past few years, Carl upgraded from Tech Plus to Extra (aced the test, too.). Traded his old 2x3 6-land call for a spiffy 2x1 3-land call. Did a lot of good anti-BPL work, too. Worked some good DX on HF with SSB, too. Now he's made a contribution to promoting the learning and use of Morse Code. (not the *test*!). Anything wrong with any of that? Yes, Carl...why are you talking about yourself in third person? It's really okay to say "I" when talking about yourself. It's rather obvious to most readers that Heil has had a deep personality conflict with me in here, by all indications a deep, antagonistic attitude wherein he keeps on finding "fault" with everything I say...and has been doing so for years. Now you are doing the same thing. Not everything you say, Len. Just some things. Carl, don't be irritating. Your Manager's Charm School certificate may fall off the wall... I guess you'd prefer that nobody except you should mention what they've done? Carl, you're still suffering that personal identity thing? Tsk, this is getting serious... Gosh, maybe I should mention we were in Cabo for a shoot. [film, that is] Shoot, forgot all about it...:-) I was on a "film shoot" last night, Len. Except no film was actually used - chemical photography is so 20th century. All digital. Thank you for that information, Carl. Should I spread word to the entertainment industry in Los Angeles? Although I think they already KNOW all of that here. [just a hunch] Oh, yes, in case you've not heard, a "shoot" has many meanings among the pros doing TV and film work around here...and in Vancouver, BC. Lots of quaint old terms still persist in the entertainment industry...but you KNOW them all, don't you? Of course you do...you will remind us by telling us all what they mean...after all, you are a code-tested amateur extra and KNOW everything. BTW, the "Cabo" I mentioned was "Cabo Tan Lucas" on Victory Blvd in Burbank, CA (half a block from Hollywood Way a north-south major street). A tanning salon, now under a different business name. :-) Oh, and Carl, there's roughly 2 to 3 production companies shooting on location somewhere in the Los Angeles area every workday (and many Saturdays). Ah, but you KNEW that, didn't you, Carl? Of course you did, you are a code-tested amateur extra and KNOW those things. Nice talking to you, Carl... LA |
One way to promote learning of code ...
wrote in message ... On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:27:31 -0500, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote: "AaronJ" wrote in message . .. John Smith I wrote: I don't use commercial ware. I once wrote a homebrew CW receive program in Atari Basic that actually did pretty well on my old 800XL (if the conditions and sending fist were pretty good). I have used and incorporated into C/C++ programs I have created myself. Does your program only receive CW or does it transmit as well? |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
"AaronJ" wrote in message I once wrote a homebrew CW receive program... Does your program only receive CW or does it transmit as well? My programs both send and receive CW. But I don't use computer CW all that often anymore. These days my favorite way to work CW has become laying back in my big recliner relaxing with my eyes closed. A computer would just be in the way. I've found that In CW as in life position can greatly improve the endeavor... ;) |
One way to promote learning of code ...
wrote:
From: on Fri, Jan 12 2007 4:52 am wrote: From: "Carl R. Stevenson" on Tues, Jan 9 2007 9:58 am "Dave Heil" wrote in message in a rerun, wrote: From: "Carl R. Stevenson" on Sun, Jan 7 2007 10:14 am [in case you've forgotten...possibly since the NCI web site didn't appear to know it until after a week had passed after the FCC announcement...just a deduction] You often make poor deductions, Leonard. Yes ... he does. I made an OBSERVATION, Carl. Looking at www.nocode.org every day for a week after the 15 Dec 06 FCC announcement. It wasn't a week after the Public Notice, but a couple of days, before it was posted to the NCI website (and a link to the Report and Order was posted within 24 hours of its release). Then why didn't it appear that soon on the "NCI website?" One that us earthpeople could read? The ARRL was posting about it the same day! Sounds like more than an OBSERVATION, Len. Hello, Carl. It's strange to see your reply under a pseudonym. Are you having an identity crisis? I get it. You've forgotten that you weren't involved in an e-mail exchange with Carl and that you posted in a public forum. As you've often pointed out, anyone may respond to any post here. Are you ticked off that somebody posted it to RRAP before you did? No, Carl. I don't pretend to be a journalist. No, you pretend that you're a PROFESSIONAL writer. Why do you? I saw no place where Jim said that he was a journalist. One of the fundamental purposes/commitments of NCI was to be a single-purpose organization that would disappear when the Morse Code test went away. Job's done in the USA, it seems. Carl, that's what you've been saying on NCI for a long time. A number of NCI members wrote something similar. Maybe you missed those posts, OT. Suddenly, comes "word" from the "Chief" of NCI on "important news!" Allegedly "immediately" (more or less) "reported." The thread subject is "One way to promote learning of code ..." No snit, Carl? Really? It really is, Len. I thought it was all about little "red-hatted monkeys" hopping about with tin cups looking for more federal welfare emotional supplements for their beloved morse code. Tsk, I must be mistaken...my bad... You're often mistaken, Len. I was on Maui for 10 days on a combination of business and vacation, but modern technology (my EVDO card) alllowed me to access the internet wirelessly from my notebook :-) Wow! High-tech! insert a Robesin hyena-guffaw here You should have remarked about a fancy hotel with Internet connections in every room or something. You don't have a direct satellite telephone? [Iridium is up and working, ain't it?] Are you jealous, Len? Of Iridium? No, Carl. I have no need for any wireless computer connection right now. Keep it in mind should you have a need, Len. You may find it a bit pricey though. Carl, if I ever NEEDED a wireless computer connection I would buy the components and connect it up. You could buy some sats and connect up your very own version of Iridium. Plenty of that equipment available at Fry's Electronics supermarket in Burbank just 10 minutes drive away. Irrelevant. They have good lap-tops for $500...we are thinking of getting one again... Deja vu in the Anderson household, huh? In the past few years, Carl upgraded from Tech Plus to Extra (aced the test, too.). Traded his old 2x3 6-land call for a spiffy 2x1 3-land call. Did a lot of good anti-BPL work, too. Worked some good DX on HF with SSB, too. Now he's made a contribution to promoting the learning and use of Morse Code. (not the *test*!). Anything wrong with any of that? Yes, Carl...why are you talking about yourself in third person? It's really okay to say "I" when talking about yourself. You've often gone on at length about yourself, Len. You use "I" quite often. It's rather obvious to most readers that Heil has had a deep personality conflict with me in here, by all indications a deep, antagonistic attitude wherein he keeps on finding "fault" with everything I say...and has been doing so for years. Now you are doing the same thing. Not everything you say, Len. Just some things. Carl, don't be irritating. Your Manager's Charm School certificate may fall off the wall... Why are you writing of yourself in the third person, Len? *snicker* I guess you'd prefer that nobody except you should mention what they've done? Carl, you're still suffering that personal identity thing? Tsk, this is getting serious... Is it? Tsk, tsk and a poor baby thrown in for good luck. Gosh, maybe I should mention we were in Cabo for a shoot. [film, that is] Shoot, forgot all about it...:-) I was on a "film shoot" last night, Len. Except no film was actually used - chemical photography is so 20th century. All digital. Thank you for that information, Carl. Should I spread word to the entertainment industry in Los Angeles? Although I think they already KNOW all of that here. [just a hunch] Then why do you think they'd need you to call and inform them? Do you haunt the movie industry and play sidewalk superintendent as you do in amateur radio? Oh, yes, in case you've not heard, a "shoot" has many meanings among the pros doing TV and film work around here...and in Vancouver, BC. As in "Let's shoot some coffee" or "How about getting together and shooting some high test"? Lots of quaint old terms still persist in the entertainment industry...but you KNOW them all, don't you? Of course you do...you will remind us by telling us all what they mean...after all, you are a code-tested amateur extra and KNOW everything. I see. You live in the Los Angeles area and now you're an expert on Hollywood films as well as amateur radio. BTW, the "Cabo" I mentioned was "Cabo Tan Lucas" on Victory Blvd in Burbank, CA (half a block from Hollywood Way a north-south major street). A tanning salon, now under a different business name. :-) Great. Is it near the Burbank Ikea? Oh, and Carl, there's roughly 2 to 3 production companies shooting on location somewhere in the Los Angeles area every workday (and many Saturdays). Ah, but you KNEW that, didn't you, Carl? Of course you did, you are a code-tested amateur extra and KNOW those things. How many are not porn? According to NPR, the porn industry is now bigger than Hollywood. Nice talking to you, Carl... LA La, la te dum-te-dum. Dave K8MN |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"AaronJ" wrote in message ... "Stefan Wolfe" wrote: "AaronJ" wrote in message I once wrote a homebrew CW receive program... Does your program only receive CW or does it transmit as well? My programs both send and receive CW. But I don't use computer CW all that often anymore. These days my favorite way to work CW has become laying back in my big recliner relaxing with my eyes closed. A computer would just be in the way. I've found that In CW as in life position can greatly improve the endeavor... ;) I like doing that too. I mostly listen to CW QSO's in a relaxed mode, like you. It is very enjoyable! The reason I asked the question is because the Part 97 technicalities seem to raise some interesting issues. For example, when using such programs, does the radio actually transmit A1A does it transmit SSB with the analog sound card output connected to the mike input? I believe it is usually (but not always) the latter. "CW" by FCC definition (for band allocation purposes) is A1A only. Using a sound card output or modem that is electrically coupled to the mike input, I believe one would be transmitting suppressed carrier SSB AM, not A1A but more likely J3A or J3B (if the code is super fast). In any case, with such programs one might technically be receiving A1A CW but transmitting sideband carrier modulated data. That is legally OK since the CW sub-bands also allow "digital" (transmitted in an analog fashion), which would comprise both the carrier modulated modes and the phase shift modulated modes (like psk31 etc.). If the computer used acoustic coupling from speaker to mike, (perhaps using the VOC as the PTT switch), I believe that would not be legal on the CW sub-bands; that would be classified as J3E voice. One cannot hold the mike to the computer speak, press PTT and transmit. My reading would be, computer "CW" (with sound card output electrically coupled to mike input and does not operate true A1A), is still legal in the CW sub-bands provided the data coupling from computer to radio is electrical and not acoustic. Actually, I would think acoustic coupling has superior protective isolation between radio and computer, better than toroids and optocouplers. Why should it make a difference legally? Because the FCC has these definitions, you see. The technology with the best isolation is also illegal to operate on the CW sub-bands as soon as anything in the circuit is reduced non-EM waves (sound). It becomes J3E (voice). Although electrically coupled J3A and J3B are legal in the CW sub-bands, one should observe the gentlemen's agreements in the band sharing plans and transmit computer CW that uses J3A and J3B only in the appropriate sections, not in the entire sub-band as A1A is permitted to do. This would imply, of course, that computer programs for CW are not acceptable (even if legal) across the entire CW allocation unless the output actually "keys" the CW carrier. They are NOT equivalent to CW. |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message ... "AaronJ" wrote in message ... "Stefan Wolfe" wrote: "AaronJ" wrote in message I once wrote a homebrew CW receive program... Does your program only receive CW or does it transmit as well? My programs both send and receive CW. But I don't use computer CW all that often anymore. These days my favorite way to work CW has become laying back in my big recliner relaxing with my eyes closed. A computer would just be in the way. I've found that In CW as in life position can greatly improve the endeavor... ;) I like doing that too. I mostly listen to CW QSO's in a relaxed mode, like you. It is very enjoyable! The reason I asked the question is because the Part 97 technicalities seem to raise some interesting issues. For example, when using such programs, does the radio actually transmit A1A does it transmit SSB with the analog sound card output connected to the mike input? I believe it is usually (but not always) the latter. "CW" by FCC definition (for band allocation purposes) is A1A only. Using a sound card output or modem that is electrically coupled to the mike input, I believe one would be transmitting suppressed carrier SSB AM, not A1A but more likely J3A or J3B (if the code is super fast). In any case, with such programs one might technically be receiving A1A CW but transmitting sideband carrier modulated data. That is legally OK since the CW sub-bands also allow "digital" (transmitted in an analog fashion), which would comprise both the carrier modulated modes and the phase shift modulated modes (like psk31 etc.). If the computer used acoustic coupling from speaker to mike, (perhaps using the VOC as the PTT switch), I believe that would not be legal on the CW sub-bands; that would be classified as J3E voice. One cannot hold the mike to the computer speak, press PTT and transmit. My reading would be, computer "CW" (with sound card output electrically coupled to mike input and does not operate true A1A), is still legal in the CW sub-bands provided the data coupling from computer to radio is electrical and not acoustic. Actually, I would think acoustic coupling has superior protective isolation between radio and computer, better than toroids and optocouplers. Why should it make a difference legally? Because the FCC has these definitions, you see. The technology with the best isolation is also illegal to operate on the CW sub-bands as soon as anything in the circuit is reduced non-EM waves (sound). It becomes J3E (voice). Although electrically coupled J3A and J3B are legal in the CW sub-bands, one should observe the gentlemen's agreements in the band sharing plans and transmit computer CW that uses J3A and J3B only in the appropriate sections, not in the entire sub-band as A1A is permitted to do. This would imply, of course, that computer programs for CW are not acceptable (even if legal) across the entire CW allocation unless the output actually "keys" the CW carrier. They are NOT equivalent to CW. Most CW computer programs are set up so that for transmission you set the radio to CW mode and then run a line from a computer serial port to the straight key jack on the radio. Therefore you are using an actual A1A transmission. Right off hand, I don't know any CW programs that feed a tone into the mic jack although I suppose there could be some out there. Dee, N8UZE |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"Dee Flint" ) writes:
Most CW computer programs are set up so that for transmission you set the radio to CW mode and then run a line from a computer serial port to the straight key jack on the radio. Therefore you are using an actual A1A transmission. Right off hand, I don't know any CW programs that feed a tone into the mic jack although I suppose there could be some out there. Dee, N8UZE On the other hand, there was a time when some commercial SSB rigs did use an injected audio tone to send CW. Whether or not they actually sent A1 would have been determined by the purity of the tone oscillator, and the carrier suppression and unwanted sideband suppression of the sideband rig. A more common occurance was RTTY, when AFSK was often used to send FSK on an SSB rig. (I suppose it was more common since it was easy to unbalance a balanced modulator and just key a stage for an SSB rig, especially when it came from the factory that way, while commercial rigs did not tend to have built in FSK ability and of course frequency shifting often resulted in slight variation of how much shift occurred depending what you modified and what you shifted. And of course, it was easier to inject an AFSK generator into the sideband rig than mess with frequency determining elements in the rig.) Nobody really thought badly of this practice, so long as it provided a decent sinewave. LIkewise, SSTV always (well maybe not in recent years, I don't know) be done by modulating an audio oscillator, and then feeding it into the mic input of the SSB rig. With good supression of the carrier, good suppresion of the unwanted sideband, and a pure enough audio oscillator, the only thing that would be noticed about the output signal would be that the dial of the transmitter doesn't directly show the transmitted frequency, since of course the carrier isn't being turned on and off, an audio oscillator is so it provides an offset. This is precisely why two-tone oscillators are needed for testing SSB transmitters. Because only then are you actually modulating the output. Otherwise, it's just a carrier. Michael VE2BVW |
A1A computer Morse on the AM commerical band
"Dee Flint" wrote in message . .. Most CW computer programs are set up so that for transmission you set the radio to CW mode and then run a line from a computer serial port to the straight key jack on the radio. Therefore you are using an actual A1A transmission. Right off hand, I don't know any CW programs that feed a tone into the mic jack although I suppose there could be some out there. Dee, N8UZE Thanks Dee. I was thinking the situation was otherwise but I never really looked into what people were actually doing with the hardware. Here is a really simple A1A keyer for non-hams (it seems to be aimed at kids) that ressurrects Morse and even encourages them to memorize it rather than building a Morse decoder on the other end. You use it to transmit from your serial port directly to the AM commercial band (10000 Khs) and the other side listens on a commerical AM radio. Any guesses as to the range? I suppose it is legal due the ultra low power. Yes, it is elementary...but seems more like being like a "ham" than some of today's licensed amateurs :-)) Other than enjoying high growth with the disabled, is the future of Morse with young non-Ham experimenters? http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/...ansmitter.html |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Stefan Wolfe wrote:
My reading would be, computer "CW" (with sound card output electrically coupled to mike input and does not operate true A1A), is still legal in the CW sub-bands provided the data coupling from computer to radio is electrical and not acoustic. Doesn't matter. This would imply, of course, that computer programs for CW are not acceptable (even if legal) across the entire CW allocation unless the output actually "keys" the CW carrier. They are NOT equivalent to CW. Yes, they are. Or rather, they can be. If you have an ideal SSB transmitter, and you feed an ideal sine-wave audio tone into it, you get a pure carrier output. Key the ideal sine-wave audio tone, and you have a keyed carrier. Now of course if the SSB transmitter or the sine-wave isn't ideal, you wind up with unwanted outputs, such as the suppressed carrier or the unwanted sideband. How much suppression is needed is another matter, but I suspect that with modern methods the unwanted products could be kept low enough not to make any difference. The big question is whether the signals (keyed carrier vs. keyed audio tone) look different on a spectrum analyzer. If they don't, why should FCC care? 73 es KC de Jim, N2EY |
A1A computer Morse on the AM commerical band
"Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message ... You use it to transmit from your serial port directly to the AM commercial band (10000 Khs) and the other side listens on a commerical AM radio. http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/...ansmitter.html Whoops, typo....S/B 1000Khz. |
A1A computer Morse on the AM commerical band
"Stefan Wolfe" ) writes:
"Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message ... You use it to transmit from your serial port directly to the AM commercial band (10000 Khs) and the other side listens on a commerical AM radio. http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/...ansmitter.html Whoops, typo....S/B 1000Khz. And wouldn't it be A2? Or have they tossed out that designation? A2 was/is an audio tone into an AM transmitter. It's what's used for the "code" function on all those old "no license required" 100mW 27MHz walkie talkies with the code keys. It has the advantage that you don't need a BFO at the receiver end. ANd of course, there was that period in the US when the 2M phone privilege went away for the Novice class license, but A2 continued to be allowed, presumably because all the cheap AM transceivers had no means of sending CW. Michael VE2BVW |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Jim wrote:
Stefan Wolfe wrote: My reading would be, computer "CW" (with sound card output electrically coupled to mike input and does not operate true A1A), is still legal in the CW sub-bands provided the data coupling from computer to radio is electrical and not acoustic. Doesn't matter. This would imply, of course, that computer programs for CW are not acceptable (even if legal) across the entire CW allocation unless the output actually "keys" the CW carrier. They are NOT equivalent to CW. Yes, they are. Or rather, they can be. If you have an ideal SSB transmitter, and you feed an ideal sine-wave audio tone into it, you get a pure carrier output. Key the ideal sine-wave audio tone, and you have a keyed carrier. ....offset from the (nulled) carrier frequency, by the pitch of the audio tone. LSB: 7.025 MHz - 440 Hz = 7.02456 MHz. USB: 7.025 MHz + 440 Hz = 7.02544 MHz. Now of course if the SSB transmitter or the sine-wave isn't ideal, you wind up with unwanted outputs, such as the suppressed carrier or the unwanted sideband. How much suppression is needed is another matter, but I suspect that with modern methods the unwanted products could be kept low enough not to make any difference. The big question is whether the signals (keyed carrier vs. keyed audio tone) look different on a spectrum analyzer. If they don't, why should FCC care? And, for decades, it's been exceedingly simple to create a very low distortion sinewave at audio frequencies. Prior to digitally synthesized oscillators, the best known was (is?) a Wien Bridge oscillator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien_bridge_oscillator. 73 es KC de Jim, N2EY 73, Bryan WA7PRC |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
"AaronJ" wrote in message My programs both send and receive CW. when using such programs, does the radio actually transmit A1A does it transmit SSB with the analog sound card output connected to the mike input? I have never used the mike input for computer CW. My homebrew CW transmitters don't have a mike input. I key the transmitter directly from a computer port driving a keying relay. In my programs I use Basic POKE statements to access the computer ports directly. |
A1A computer Morse on the AM commerical band
"Michael Black" wrote in message ... "Stefan Wolfe" ) writes: "Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message ... You use it to transmit from your serial port directly to the AM commercial band (10000 Khs) and the other side listens on a commerical AM radio. http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/...ansmitter.html Whoops, typo....S/B 1000Khz. And wouldn't it be A2? Or have they tossed out that designation? A2 was/is an audio tone into an AM transmitter. I think in this circuit pin 4 of the serial port connects to the power input of the oscillator cihip. The oscillator 1MHz "carrier" is truely keyed on and off, thus it is A1A. |
One way to promote learning of code ...
wrote in message ups.com... The big question is whether the signals (keyed carrier vs. keyed audio tone) look different on a spectrum analyzer. If they don't, why should FCC care? I agree that it doesn't matter to the FCC as long is the keyed audio tone is coupled to the radio with EM waves such as with light (optoisolators), RF or wires (electrical connections). However, if you couple the keyed audio carrier acoustically, speaker-to-mike using only sound waves, then that is J3E and only permissible in the voice portion of the band. If I were to whistle nearly pure sine waves (I am a good whistler, perhaps you have seen paintings of my mother :-)) in Morse code into the mike input, it might look like CW and sound like CW but it would really be J3E, hence illegal in the CW sub-bands. Using acoustic coupling (J3E), it becomes a slippery slope; first computer generated tones, then human whistling, then humming and before you know it, "talking" (di dah di dah etc.. and finally, "words" :-)) |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"Stefan Wolfe" ) writes:
wrote in message ups.com... The big question is whether the signals (keyed carrier vs. keyed audio tone) look different on a spectrum analyzer. If they don't, why should FCC care? I agree that it doesn't matter to the FCC as long is the keyed audio tone is coupled to the radio with EM waves such as with light (optoisolators), RF or wires (electrical connections). However, if you couple the keyed audio carrier acoustically, speaker-to-mike using only sound waves, then that is J3E and only permissible in the voice portion of the band. If I were to whistle nearly pure sine waves (I am a good whistler, perhaps you have seen paintings of my mother :-)) in Morse code into the mike input, it might look like CW and sound like CW but it would really be J3E, hence illegal in the CW sub-bands. Using acoustic coupling (J3E), it becomes a slippery slope; first computer generated tones, then human whistling, then humming and before you know it, "talking" (di dah di dah etc.. and finally, "words" :-)) But it could never be A1, because it doesn't meet the criteria of a pure tone into a good SSB transmitter. I doubt however good a whistler you are, that you can guarantee it's a sine wave and doesn't include any peripheral noise. And that microphone is bound to pick up background noise, so you aren't sending a CW signal. Also, the speaker and microphone, if putting a tone oscillator into the transmitter that way, may add distortion to the tone, which then means you don't have a CW signal. If it looks and sounds like CW, then it is CW. But your examples aren't about sending CW, because you'd be sending peripheral audio along with the tone. In other words, it's the results that matter. You can't get those results with a microphone, and that's why it's not CW. Michael VE2BVW |
A1A computer Morse on the AM commerical band
"Stefan Wolfe" ) writes:
"Michael Black" wrote in message ... "Stefan Wolfe" ) writes: "Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message ... You use it to transmit from your serial port directly to the AM commercial band (10000 Khs) and the other side listens on a commerical AM radio. http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/...ansmitter.html Whoops, typo....S/B 1000Khz. And wouldn't it be A2? Or have they tossed out that designation? A2 was/is an audio tone into an AM transmitter. I think in this circuit pin 4 of the serial port connects to the power input of the oscillator cihip. The oscillator 1MHz "carrier" is truely keyed on and off, thus it is A1A. I admit I didn't look at the link before, but having done so, they are talking about a choice, modulating the oscillator with one of two audio frequencies, or just on-off keying. Since they are using one of the control lines of the serial port, rather than the serial data line, they have full control (well depending on the operating system) over that line, so they can switch it at a low rate, for CW, or switch it at a fast rate such as 1KHz, and then doing that on and off to match the code's on and off. My expectation that it would be A2 is based on the simple fact that the average AM radio doesn't have a BFO, and trying to decipher CW without a BFO is difficult at the very least. Hence, any project for building a "CW transmitter" in the AM broadcast band (and the FM broadcast band for that matter, though I don't recall seeing any of those) would be keying an audio oscillator that modulates an RF oscillator, so you could hear it in the radio. It's been like that since 36 years ago when I built one for a science project, and long before that. That webpage does acknowledge that you can send straight CW, but then you'd need a receiver with a BFO, I think they said "expensive shortwave radio". Michael VE2BVW |
One way to promote learning of code ...
wrote: From: on Wed, Jan 10 2007 7:24 pm AaronJ wrote: John Smith I wrote: Minor, inconsequential and random errors are easily programmed into the computer generated model, but will give the morse that "unique signature" of the "imitated keyers style." IMO the perfect fist sounds like computer generated CW. And it's the easiest to copy. All those so called 'unique fists' can be copied but it's like trying to understand someone from Brooklyn (or Texas)... ;) Well, there was some debate about this a few years back. It centered around a couple of things; 1) being a lack of an actual definition of Morse Code in Title 47, and 2) the desire of several of the Pro-Code Test folks to claim that a method of TEACHING Morse Code should be used as a Morse Code Exam, i.e., the Farnsworth Code. "Bang on" as the Brits say, Brian. BTW, it took the FCC years to finally update Part 97 from its previously OBSOLETE CCITT document reference to the 'proper' ITU-T document. Even then the proper document, like the old CCITT one, describes a COMMERCIAL telegram protocol, not an amateur one. The FCC should know better than to mix commercial telegram protocol with amateur protocol. Why, it's off topic... Morse Code had previously been defined with specific dot, dash, and space interval ratios. Exams were then defined as Morse Code sent at rates of 20, 13, and 5 WPM. Today, they use the Teaching Method of Farnsworth Code, where the dot, dash, and interval can be anything desired, and character speeds of 13 to 15 WPM for a 5 WPM exam. That's fine for learning the code as Part 97 doesn't address any particular method, nor does it advocate any particular vendor such as W5YI or ARRL. Yet Part 97 still, even to this day, requires a Morse Code Exam (Farnsworth isn't mentioned) at a Morse Code Rate of 5 WPM. Lengthening the space interval isn't addressed as a way to get 13 to 15 WPM character speeds down to 5 WPM word rate. But hey, Part 97 is only a suggestion, right? A DEFINITON of WORD RATE is NOT DIRECTLY STATED in Part 97! Perhaps two sentences could have been included to SET or FIX the word rate...but the FCC never included that. When that was 'discussed' in here by the morse mavens, they all pointed to Paris with an "everybody 'knows' that" kind of attitude. Like Shirley McClain, they all held hands and faced East. And none of that matters now, anyway. THANK GOD! Miracles can happen. :-) We'll see. At this point it's an "apparent" miracle. Anyhow, the Pro-Code Exam folks were all over the notion that code was an individual thing and that each person's code sounded like "speech" to them because of all of the little and big imperfections, and sometimes the big imperfections were deliberate. I was chided for suggesting that manually sent code should be formed as precisely as one could make it, which sparked another debate. Apparently, humans trying to send perfect code shouldn't be a goal in amateur radio, even if unachievable. Which took us full circle to the humans emulating modems of the original invention of Sammy Morse, the code paper tape with dashes and longer dashes scribed on them. Sam's original "code" was all NUMBERS. That's what was used in the first US telegram company (Washington DC to Baltimore MD, 1844). Five-number code groups representing "common" phrases of the 1800s. And, it was done with paper tape with an ink pen driven by an electromagnet. Sam's financial angel, Al Vail, came up with the first true telegraphic code to represent letters and punctuation as well as just numbers. Sam was running out of numbers in his "code dictionary" and didn't have enough (or maybe patience) and the original morse code was NOT speedy...although it really, really outpaced the common rider-horse courier system for "overnight delivery" of that time. :-) Today, code is sent for pleasure. That almost merits a government exam. Oh, well, it was a nice walk in the park. The PCTA folks arguments were as imperfect as the code they send. Tsk, tsk, Brian. By their own admission, *all* PCTA send Perfect Code! Much, much faster than 'we' can realize. :-) But, in retrospect, all the PCTA had for "reasons" of retention of the code test amounted to mental conditioning (brainwashing) over years and years of League emphasis on that mode. They were subconsciously parroting all of it. In some cases, it was overt. PCTA will NEVER, ever admit to ANY mental conditioning. To them amateur radio was all about radiotelegraphy. Before the turn of the new millennium, every other radio service had DROPPED OOK CW or never considered it when that radio service was created. Morsemanship is alive (and on life support) ONLY in amateur radio today. I say "only" because a few olde-tymers in other radio services MIGHT be still using morsemanship but that is NOT what is the MAJOR MODE of communications. As long as there is a single one out there... Miccolis will jump in here and say I am "wrong" or "mistaken" (as is his usual ranting) but it is TRUE. Except for the die-hard (Bruce Willis wannabes?) morsemen in ham radio, morse code is DYING if not dead. THEY are the zombies, the "walking dead" who strut around pretending to be "champion ops in radio." Yes, "champion" in the time-frame of the 1930s. This is 2007, not 70 years ago. There will be stigmata in the Church of Saint Hiram when the Federal Register publishes the R&O. |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Stefan Wolfe wrote: wrote in message oups.com... From: on Wed, Jan 10 2007 7:24 pm AaronJ wrote: John Smith I wrote: Personally, I like Farnsworth better than Morse. I use Farnsworth all the time and it seems that people who only use Morse have no problem copying my Farnsworth. Farnsworth is a teaching method used to avoid the mental counting of dits and dahs in slower speed Morse Code. In Farnsworth, as you approach the desired speed, the spaces continue to be reduced until, at the desired speed, you are using Morse Code. So unless you are running a code class on the air, why would you use it? Are you sending to Val Germann? |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"Michael Black" wrote in message ... If it looks and sounds like CW, then it is CW. If the carrier of a double sideband AM signal is not keyed on and off, it is not true CW, no matter how it sounds. I think the problem is that you are incorrectly equating A1 "CW" to A2 "MCW" (tone modulated continuous wave). Actually, MCW is an oxymoron. Although you can have a wave continuously modulated by tone, you cannot have a continuous wave if the wave is continuously modulated. It should be WCM, not MCW :-) You obviously know the difference. A1 CW must meet the emission requirement of on/off keying of the carrier - only. In other words, it's the results that matter. You can't get those results with a microphone, and that's why it's not CW. I agree with the latter. Nothing is true "CW" except keyed double sideband carrier (A1A). That doesn't mean it isn't Morse (or Farnsworth :-)). True CW is very narrowly defined in its emission characteristic. It is only a technical point. You can call tone modulated carrier "CW" if you wish but that does not agree with the FCC definition in designating the US CW sub-bands. And yes, MCW will let you listen to 1 Mhz on a cheap AM radio while a zero beat oscillator is needed to hear A1A on a cheap AM radio (I had overlooked that simple fact before). |
One way to promote learning of code ...
From: (Michael Black) on Sun, Jan 14 2007
12:24 am "Dee Flint" ) writes: Most CW computer programs are set up so that for transmission you set the radio to CW mode and then run a line from a computer serial port to the straight key jack on the radio. Therefore you are using an actual A1A transmission. Right off hand, I don't know any CW programs that feed a tone into the mic jack although I suppose there could be some out there. On the other hand, there was a time when some commercial SSB rigs did use an injected audio tone to send CW. Whether or not they actually sent A1 would have been determined by the purity of the tone oscillator, and the carrier suppression and unwanted sideband suppression of the sideband rig. Most of the ready-built "CW" or SSB HF transceivers in use today do that sort of keying. Major reason is keeping the PA at the same bias for all modes selected; makes for a simpler mode selection control. A more common occurance was RTTY, when AFSK was often used to send FSK on an SSB rig. (I suppose it was more common since it was easy to unbalance a balanced modulator and just key a stage for an SSB rig, especially when it came from the factory that way, while commercial rigs did not tend to have built in FSK ability and of course frequency shifting often resulted in slight variation of how much shift occurred depending what you modified and what you shifted. The first RTTY radio circuits, circa 1930-1960, used separate exciters to feed Class C biased transmitters. The exciters (not an exciting name for a separate box) literally shifted their carrier frequency from Mark to Space. Those were, generally, crystal controlled but with an adjustment for the "shift" (of Mark to Space). Around 1950 the first "VFO" style of FSK exciters appeared on the radio market. Doing RTTY via audio frequency initial Mark-Space shifting is simpler, more stable, but requires a SSB transmitter system to translate the audio spectrum into the HF spectrum...which is exactly what a SSB voice modulator does. Once spectra are translated there isn't any real difference in frequencies at RF. Once again, there need be no change in PA biasing between voice, data, or "CW." The internal microcontroller of practically every ready-built SSB transceiver takes care of the shifting used during a translate of spectra. That's a relatively simple programming task and, essentially, invisible to the operator. It should be noted by operators (but seldom understood) since the adjustment of "carrier frequency" for operator display versus mode varies between manufacturers. This is precisely why two-tone oscillators are needed for testing SSB transmitters. Because only then are you actually modulating the output. Otherwise, it's just a carrier. Quite true and succinctly put, Michael. A single frequency from any source, translated to HF, will still be a single frequency. Two frequencies close together (a "two-tone" source) will still translate to two RF frequencies close together...those can simulate a carrier and its single steady-amplitude AM tone content. [relative amplitudes of the pair will simulate anything from percentage modulation (as with AM) or the carrier suppression (of SSB). What happens at AF to RF translation in THIS group is the emotional-baggage tie-in to the mythos of morse such that direct RF on-off keying is somehow a "pure way" to send "CW." Those lost in the mythos will contentiously state that audio tone generation (with on-off keying of the audio) translated to RF is "false" or "artificial." Those folks just haven't made the connection to spectral content of ANY modulated signal...a few even contend that "CW" (on-off keying) "has no sidebands" because "it is just turned on or off!" :-) Perhaps worse is the group that believes all-Class-C transmitters are "pure" in their spectral content (as if those had no harmonics)! Sigh... :-( |
One way to promote learning of code ...
wrote: wrote: From: on Wed, Jan 10 2007 7:24 pm AaronJ wrote: John Smith I wrote: Minor, inconsequential and random errors are easily programmed into the computer generated model, but will give the morse that "unique signature" of the "imitated keyers style." IMO the perfect fist sounds like computer generated CW. And it's the easiest to copy. All those so called 'unique fists' can be copied but it's like trying to understand someone from Brooklyn (or Texas)... ;) Well, there was some debate about this a few years back. It centered around a couple of things; 1) being a lack of an actual definition of Morse Code in Title 47, and 2) the desire of several of the Pro-Code Test folks to claim that a method of TEACHING Morse Code should be used as a Morse Code Exam, i.e., the Farnsworth Code. "Bang on" as the Brits say, Brian. BTW, it took the FCC years to finally update Part 97 from its previously OBSOLETE CCITT document reference to the 'proper' ITU-T document. Even then the proper document, like the old CCITT one, describes a COMMERCIAL telegram protocol, not an amateur one. The FCC should know better than to mix commercial telegram protocol with amateur protocol. Why, it's off topic... Morse Code had previously been defined with specific dot, dash, and space interval ratios. Exams were then defined as Morse Code sent at rates of 20, 13, and 5 WPM. Today, they use the Teaching Method of Farnsworth Code, where the dot, dash, and interval can be anything desired, and character speeds of 13 to 15 WPM for a 5 WPM exam. That's fine for learning the code as Part 97 doesn't address any particular method, nor does it advocate any particular vendor such as W5YI or ARRL. Yet Part 97 still, even to this day, requires a Morse Code Exam (Farnsworth isn't mentioned) at a Morse Code Rate of 5 WPM. Lengthening the space interval isn't addressed as a way to get 13 to 15 WPM character speeds down to 5 WPM word rate. But hey, Part 97 is only a suggestion, right? A DEFINITON of WORD RATE is NOT DIRECTLY STATED in Part 97! Perhaps two sentences could have been included to SET or FIX the word rate...but the FCC never included that. When that was 'discussed' in here by the morse mavens, they all pointed to Paris with an "everybody 'knows' that" kind of attitude. Like Shirley McClain, they all held hands and faced East. Heh heh...that's a good way to put it! :-) And none of that matters now, anyway. THANK GOD! Miracles can happen. :-) We'll see. At this point it's an "apparent" miracle. A pre-destined one, though. Anyhow, the Pro-Code Exam folks were all over the notion that code was an individual thing and that each person's code sounded like "speech" to them because of all of the little and big imperfections, and sometimes the big imperfections were deliberate. I was chided for suggesting that manually sent code should be formed as precisely as one could make it, which sparked another debate. Apparently, humans trying to send perfect code shouldn't be a goal in amateur radio, even if unachievable. Which took us full circle to the humans emulating modems of the original invention of Sammy Morse, the code paper tape with dashes and longer dashes scribed on them. Sam's original "code" was all NUMBERS. That's what was used in the first US telegram company (Washington DC to Baltimore MD, 1844). Five-number code groups representing "common" phrases of the 1800s. And, it was done with paper tape with an ink pen driven by an electromagnet. Sam's financial angel, Al Vail, came up with the first true telegraphic code to represent letters and punctuation as well as just numbers. Sam was running out of numbers in his "code dictionary" and didn't have enough (or maybe patience) and the original morse code was NOT speedy...although it really, really outpaced the common rider-horse courier system for "overnight delivery" of that time. :-) Today, code is sent for pleasure. That almost merits a government exam. Of course it should be so. screwball grin Firstly, amateur radio is a national service (like the military) and all amateurs are portrayed as emergency-rescue heroes vital to the country. Ergo, since the FCC allows morsemanship to occur on ham bands, "naturally" there must be a test for it. That's the thinking of the morse mavens who inhabit this Din of Inequity. Oh, well, it was a nice walk in the park. The PCTA folks arguments were as imperfect as the code they send. Tsk, tsk, Brian. By their own admission, *all* PCTA send Perfect Code! Much, much faster than 'we' can realize. :-) But, in retrospect, all the PCTA had for "reasons" of retention of the code test amounted to mental conditioning (brainwashing) over years and years of League emphasis on that mode. They were subconsciously parroting all of it. In some cases, it was overt. Ah, but never EVER admitted! :-) PCTA will NEVER, ever admit to ANY mental conditioning. To them amateur radio was all about radiotelegraphy. Before the turn of the new millennium, every other radio service had DROPPED OOK CW or never considered it when that radio service was created. Morsemanship is alive (and on life support) ONLY in amateur radio today. I say "only" because a few olde-tymers in other radio services MIGHT be still using morsemanship but that is NOT what is the MAJOR MODE of communications. As long as there is a single one out there... Sigh...that's about the ONLY thing that justifies their mean way of acting. Miccolis will jump in here and say I am "wrong" or "mistaken" (as is his usual ranting) but it is TRUE. Except for the die-hard (Bruce Willis wannabes?) morsemen in ham radio, morse code is DYING if not dead. THEY are the zombies, the "walking dead" who strut around pretending to be "champion ops in radio." Yes, "champion" in the time-frame of the 1930s. This is 2007, not 70 years ago. There will be stigmata in the Church of Saint Hiram when the Federal Register publishes the R&O. Everyone down to the supermarket...lettuce spray! :-) LA |
Keying The Transmitter
wrote:
From: (Michael Black) on Sun, Jan 14 2007 12:24 am "Dee Flint" ) writes: Most CW computer programs are set up so that for transmission you set the radio to CW mode and then run a line from a computer serial port to the straight key jack on the radio. Therefore you are using an actual A1A transmission. Right off hand, I don't know any CW programs that feed a tone into the mic jack although I suppose there could be some out there. On the other hand, there was a time when some commercial SSB rigs did use an injected audio tone to send CW. Whether or not they actually sent A1 would have been determined by the purity of the tone oscillator, and the carrier suppression and unwanted sideband suppression of the sideband rig. Most of the ready-built "CW" or SSB HF transceivers in use today do that sort of keying. If you mean they use a keyed audio tone fed into an SSB transmitter, I think you are mistaken, Len. Name some HF transceivers in use today that use a keyed audio tone fed into an SSB transmitter as the way to generate "CW". I don't think you can. I think you're just guessing. Or maybe you intentionally imbed false statements in your posts as a way of attracting attention to yourself.... Major reason is keeping the PA at the same bias for all modes selected; makes for a simpler mode selection control. The same result can be had by using a carrier oscillator and keying one of the low level amplifier stages. The first RTTY radio circuits, "RTTY radio circuit" is redundant, Len, because the R in "RTTY" means "radio". It's like saying "PIN number" or "ATM machine". ;-) A PROFESSIONAL writer would know that, I think..... What happens at AF to RF translation in THIS group is the emotional-baggage tie-in to the mythos of morse such that direct RF on-off keying is somehow a "pure way" to send "CW." Those lost in the mythos will contentiously state that audio tone generation (with on-off keying of the audio) translated to RF is "false" or "artificial." Who, exactly, says that, Len? Those folks just haven't made the connection to spectral content of ANY modulated signal...a few even contend that "CW" (on-off keying) "has no sidebands" because "it is just turned on or off!" :-) As I have previously written, if you can't tell the difference on a spectrum analyzer.... Perhaps worse is the group that believes all-Class-C transmitters are "pure" in their spectral content (as if those had no harmonics)! Sigh... :-( Who believes that, Len? Class C amplifiers can certainly produce clean signals. They just need the appropriate amount of filtering of their output to reduce harmonics to an acceptable level. |
One way to promote learning of code ...
wrote in message
oups.com... From: (Michael Black) on Sun, Jan 14 2007 12:24 am This is precisely why two-tone oscillators are needed for testing SSB transmitters. Because only then are you actually modulating the output. Otherwise, it's just a carrier. What happens at AF to RF translation in THIS group is the emotional-baggage tie-in to the mythos of morse such that direct RF on-off keying is somehow a "pure way" to send "CW." You may modulate the carrier with a tone but then it is not actually "CW" anymore. You may not think definitions are not important or consider those who wish to adhere to important definitions to be carrying emotional baggage, but definitions do have value and can be essential. Remember the story of the 1800's era Indiana state legislure passing a law to refine pie by rounding it off from 3.1415 to 3? Those lost in the mythos will contentiously state that audio tone generation (with on-off keying of the audio) translated to RF is "false" or "artificial." Without on/off keying of the RF, it is simply is not "CW". I give you this; you could call audio code that generates 2 RF states such as mark/space to be "CW's" (continuous waveS). When the frequency or phase changes to a different value from the original value, the "wave" ceases to be continuous. However, you could conceive of the two RF states as being 2 continuous waves that are either present or not, similar to 2 A1A transmissions (where one continuous wave is present or not). They are not equivalent. Not the same as A1A Morse. I do not consider belief in fact to be emotional baggage. Those folks just haven't made the connection to spectral content of ANY modulated signal...a few even contend that "CW" (on-off keying) "has no sidebands" because "it is just turned on or off!" :-) Actually. I have never heard anybody say that. I have heard your Canadian compatriot talk about transmitting "pure" sine waves which almost imples no sidebands, when not considering on/off rise and fall times when the RF is keyed (which he seems to ignore when he say says "pure sine waves"). Perhaps worse is the group that believes all-Class-C transmitters are "pure" in their spectral content (as if those had no harmonics)! Sigh... :-( Again, most people who talk about "Class C" amplifiers are familiar with their bias points being set above cut-off value for increased efficiency, therefore they have distorted outputs and such people would know know that they therefore generate lots of harmomics (and in some cases are intended to, as in the case of frequency markers). Those who are not aware of this do not tend not to speak about "Class C" amplifiers, specifically. They just talk about their "linear AMPS" (which are hopefully biased at more like AB than C :-)) |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"Stefan Wolfe" ) writes:
"Michael Black" wrote in message ... If it looks and sounds like CW, then it is CW. If the carrier of a double sideband AM signal is not keyed on and off, it is not true CW, no matter how it sounds. I think the problem is that you are incorrectly equating A1 "CW" to A2 "MCW" (tone modulated continuous wave). NO, I'm talking about resutls. We weren't talking about double sideband, presumably with a carrier. We were talking about an SSB transmitter. You can't get a signal that "looks and sounds like CW" if you feed an audio tone into a transmitter that has a carrier, and/or has two sidebands. There will at the very least be the carrier and a signal offset from that carrier by the frequency of the audio tone. If there are two sidebands, there will be the carrier and then two signals (both offset from the carrier by the frequency of the audio tone). In neither of these cases will there be a CW signal. But feed a pure enough sinewave into an SSB transmitter that has good carrier balance and good unwanted sideband supression, and you have a CW signal. It doesn't matter how it's generated, it matters whether it "looks and sounds like CW". If you were talking about whistling into an AM (ie dsb with carrier) transmitter) then all you can ever get is "MCW", aka Modulated CW. If I misread what kind of transmitter you were talking about, it was precisly because there is absolutely no way you can get a CW signal by whistling into an AM (DSB with carrier) transmitter. YOu were the one who said you were a good whistler. No, I went back and you were talking about a sideband transmitter. The results are the results. YOu can't get a CW signal out of an AM transmitter by injecting an audio tone into it. The output signal will be the giveaway, and it doesn't matter what method you use. But if you inject an tone into an SSB transmitter, the results will be exactly the same as a CW signal, so long as the sinewave is pure and that ssb transmitter is in good shape. It's no longer "tone modulated" because you are only issuing a single frequency. An AM transmitter does not transmit a signal where the carrier goes up and down in amplitude. It is a composite signal of three signals. The carrier, which in effect gets to the antenna because of feedthrough. Then the two sidebands. Feed a fixed audio tone (say 1KHz) into that transmitter and you get three signals in the output of that transmitter, the carrier, and the two sidebands at 1KHz above and below that carrier. Obviously that can never be a CW signal. But it does show that the modulating tone is translated to radio frequency. Suppress the carrier, and the carrier is gone from the output, with the two sidebands still there, which means two signals each offset from the frequency of the missing carrier. Suppress the unwanted sideband from that, and you get a single frequency, which is no different from a carrier out of a CW transmitter. When you whistle into an SSB transmitter, it can't be CW for the simple reason that it won't be a pure tone, and the microphone will pick up background noise, and you will no longer have a single frequency output from the transmitter. ONe of your previous posts was about your interpretation of what was wanted, but it wasn't about understanding what was being sent. The FCC or any regulatory body doesn't care whether you key an RF oscillator on and off to generate CW, or if you inject a tone into an SSB transmitter. They care about the results. Hence if the tone isn't pure, or the SSB transmitter is not suppressing the carrier or unwanted sideband enough, then you have an amplitude modulated signal of some sort, and of course it isn't allowed in the CW sub-band. But neither can you run an AM transmitter in the CW sub-bands and start modulating it with anything into the microphone input. "Acoustic coupling" has nothing to do with what type of signal is being sent, except so far as it affects the purity of the output signal. You are confusing Modulated CW with using a pure tone with a good SSB transmitter. The former will always be an MCW signal, the latter will be a CW signal so long as things are well adjusted and pure. Michael VE2BVW |
One way to promote learning of code ...
First let me say that, in amateur radio use, the term "CW", when used
to mean a mode of radio communication, is universally defined as "Morse Code radiotelegraphy by means of an on-off keyed carrier". The literal "continuous wave" meaning does not apply. Stefan Wolfe wrote: wrote in message ups.com... The big question is whether the signals (keyed carrier vs. keyed audio tone) look different on a spectrum analyzer. If they don't, why should FCC care? I agree that it doesn't matter to the FCC as long is the keyed audio tone is coupled to the radio with EM waves such as with light (optoisolators), RF or wires (electrical connections). However, if you couple the keyed audio carrier acoustically, speaker-to-mike using only sound waves, then that is J3E and only permissible in the voice portion of the band. No, that's just not true - *IF* the rig and tone are clean enough. Problems arise when the tone is not a pure sinusoid, or the transmitter does not have adequate carrier- or unwanted sideband-suppression. But that's not what is being discussed here. Feed a Morse-Code-keyed audio tone that is a pure sinusoid into an SSB transmitter of sufficient quality, and the result is "CW". It doesn't matter how the tone gets into the transmitter, as long as the process doesn't introduce other tones or artifacts. If I were to whistle nearly pure sine waves (I am a good whistler, perhaps you have seen paintings of my mother :-)) in Morse code into the mike input, it might look like CW and sound like CW but it would really be J3E, hence illegal in the CW sub-bands. No, that's not true, unless the whistle isn't a pure sine wave. Using acoustic coupling (J3E), it becomes a slippery slope; first computer generated tones, then human whistling, then humming and before you know it, "talking" (di dah di dah etc.. and finally, "words" :-)) Not a slippery slope at all. All that matters is what it looks like to a spectrum analyzer. If the whistle is a pure sine wave, the output will be a single carrier. But if it's not a pure sine wave, the result will be spectrally different, and illegal. From a regulations standpoint, it does not matter how the signal is generated. What does matter is that it meets the standards of spectrum purity. Now you might argue that a simple "CW" transmitter using keyed Class C stages and vacuum tubes can be much simpler, more electrically efficient, and certainly more elegant than a newfangled computer-SSB-transceiver-kluge-setup, yet deliver a signal of equal quality. That's true - but it's a different issue. |
Keying The Transmitter
|
One way to promote learning of code ...
wrote in message ups.com... First let me say that, in amateur radio use, the term "CW", when used to mean a mode of radio communication, is universally defined as "Morse Code radiotelegraphy by means of an on-off keyed carrier". The literal "continuous wave" meaning does not apply. Stefan Wolfe wrote: wrote in message ups.com... The big question is whether the signals (keyed carrier vs. keyed audio tone) look different on a spectrum analyzer. If they don't, why should FCC care? I agree that it doesn't matter to the FCC as long is the keyed audio tone is coupled to the radio with EM waves such as with light (optoisolators), RF or wires (electrical connections). However, if you couple the keyed audio carrier acoustically, speaker-to-mike using only sound waves, then that is J3E and only permissible in the voice portion of the band. No, that's just not true - *IF* the rig and tone are clean enough. Problems arise when the tone is not a pure sinusoid, or the transmitter does not have adequate carrier- or unwanted sideband-suppression. But that's not what is being discussed here. Feed a Morse-Code-keyed audio tone that is a pure sinusoid into an SSB transmitter of sufficient quality, and the result is "CW". It doesn't matter how the tone gets into the transmitter, as long as the process doesn't introduce other tones or artifacts. If I were to whistle nearly pure sine waves (I am a good whistler, perhaps you have seen paintings of my mother :-)) in Morse code into the mike input, it might look like CW and sound like CW but it would really be J3E, hence illegal in the CW sub-bands. No, that's not true, unless the whistle isn't a pure sine wave. Using acoustic coupling (J3E), it becomes a slippery slope; first computer generated tones, then human whistling, then humming and before you know it, "talking" (di dah di dah etc.. and finally, "words" :-)) Not a slippery slope at all. All that matters is what it looks like to a spectrum analyzer. If the whistle is a pure sine wave, the output will be a single carrier. But if it's not a pure sine wave, the result will be spectrally different, and illegal. From a regulations standpoint, it does not matter how the signal is generated. What does matter is that it meets the standards of spectrum purity. Now you might argue that a simple "CW" transmitter using keyed Class C stages and vacuum tubes can be much simpler, more electrically efficient, and certainly more elegant than a newfangled computer-SSB-transceiver-kluge-setup, yet deliver a signal of equal quality. That's true - but it's a different issue. I give up. You keep talking about how the signal looks when it is *received*. I keep talking about how the true A1A signal is supposed to be *transmitted* (your last paragraph is exactly that but you dismissed it). Part 97 is not concerned with how you receive, only how you transmit. I agree it is true that you can fool anyone on the receiving end as long as you can make the signal look like A1A on a spectrum analyzer. That might be difficult because the sidebands generated by breaking a CW "square" wave would be present on my A1A transmission and you would somehow have to re-create them on your SSB pure tone transmission that is keyed in your tightly filtered audio circuit. But re-check the definition of A1A and you will see that there is only one way to *transmit* it. And A1A is the only FCC definition of "CW". It is a moot point because tone generated data (as a sinusoidal "mark" in your SSB transmission) is legal everywhere that CW is legal. The same is not true of the voluntary band plans. It it is important to know the difference, even if you think the difference makes no difference so to speak. And I said that whistling CW into the mike is J3E voice, not A1A, and the only thing that separates it from being legal on the CW sub-bands is the way the data is coupled, not how it is received or transmitted. You completely missed all of my points. |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Stefan Wolfe wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... First let me say that, in amateur radio use, the term "CW", when used to mean a mode of radio communication, is universally defined as "Morse Code radiotelegraphy by means of an on-off keyed carrier". The literal "continuous wave" meaning does not apply. Stefan Wolfe wrote: wrote in message ups.com... The big question is whether the signals (keyed carrier vs. keyed audio tone) look different on a spectrum analyzer. If they don't, why should FCC care? I agree that it doesn't matter to the FCC as long is the keyed audio tone is coupled to the radio with EM waves such as with light (optoisolators), RF or wires (electrical connections). However, if you couple the keyed audio carrier acoustically, speaker-to-mike using only sound waves, then that is J3E and only permissible in the voice portion of the band. No, that's just not true - *IF* the rig and tone are clean enough. Problems arise when the tone is not a pure sinusoid, or the transmitter does not have adequate carrier- or unwanted sideband-suppression. But that's not what is being discussed here. Feed a Morse-Code-keyed audio tone that is a pure sinusoid into an SSB transmitter of sufficient quality, and the result is "CW". It doesn't matter how the tone gets into the transmitter, as long as the process doesn't introduce other tones or artifacts. If I were to whistle nearly pure sine waves (I am a good whistler, perhaps you have seen paintings of my mother :-)) in Morse code into the mike input, it might look like CW and sound like CW but it would really be J3E, hence illegal in the CW sub-bands. No, that's not true, unless the whistle isn't a pure sine wave. Using acoustic coupling (J3E), it becomes a slippery slope; first computer generated tones, then human whistling, then humming and before you know it, "talking" (di dah di dah etc.. and finally, "words" :-)) Not a slippery slope at all. All that matters is what it looks like to a spectrum analyzer. If the whistle is a pure sine wave, the output will be a single carrier. But if it's not a pure sine wave, the result will be spectrally different, and illegal. From a regulations standpoint, it does not matter how the signal is generated. What does matter is that it meets the standards of spectrum purity. Now you might argue that a simple "CW" transmitter using keyed Class C stages and vacuum tubes can be much simpler, more electrically efficient, and certainly more elegant than a newfangled computer-SSB-transceiver-kluge-setup, yet deliver a signal of equal quality. That's true - but it's a different issue. I give up. You keep talking about how the signal looks when it is *received*. No, I don't. I'm talking about what the signal produced by the transmitter looks like on a spectrum analyzer I keep talking about how the true A1A signal is supposed to be *transmitted* (your last paragraph is exactly that but you dismissed it). The basic point is this: FCC doesn't care *how* you generate a "CW" signal, as long as it meets the technical requirements. Part 97 is not concerned with how you receive, only how you transmit. Not "how" you transmit but "what" you transmit. The characteristics of the transmitted signal are what matters, not the technology used to generate it. I agree it is true that you can fool anyone on the receiving end as long as you can make the signal look like A1A on a spectrum analyzer. Not about fooling anyone. It's about meeting the technical requirements for signal quality. That might be difficult because the sidebands generated by breaking a CW "square" wave would be present on my A1A transmission and you would somehow have to re-create them on your SSB pure tone transmission that is keyed in your tightly filtered audio circuit. But re-check the definition of A1A and you will see that there is only one way to *transmit* it. Show us. Post the definition that says the way the signal is generated matters to FCC. And A1A is the only FCC definition of "CW". Show us. It is a moot point because tone generated data (as a sinusoidal "mark" in your SSB transmission) is legal everywhere that CW is legal. The same is not true of the voluntary band plans. It it is important to know the difference, even if you think the difference makes no difference so to speak. And I said that whistling CW into the mike is J3E voice, not A1A, and the only thing that separates it from being legal on the CW sub-bands is the way the data is coupled, not how it is received or transmitted. The way the data is coupled makes no difference. What matters are the characteristics of the transmitted signal. In practice, I don't think anyone could whistle into a mike so perfectly as to produce a "CW" signal that would be indistinguishable from one generated by more conventional means. But that's not the point. You completely missed all of my points. No, I simply pointed out your errors in interpretation of the rules. |
One way to promote learning of code ...
|
One way to promote learning of code ...
wrote:
From: (Michael Black) on Sun, Jan 14 2007 Most of the ready-built "CW" or SSB HF transceivers in use today do that sort of keying. Major reason is keeping the PA at the same bias for all modes selected; makes for a simpler mode selection control. I believe you've made another of your factual errors, Leonard. Collins used to use this method in the KWM-2A. Unfortunately, the company used a 1375 Hz tone--too high for anything but casual CW use. Dave K8MN |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: wrote: As long as there is a single one out there... Sigh...that's about the ONLY thing that justifies their mean way of acting. How do you justify your behavior here, Len? How do you justify your behavior here, Dave? |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"Stefan Wolfe" ) writes:
I give up. You keep talking about how the signal looks when it is *received*. I keep talking about how the true A1A signal is supposed to be *transmitted* (your last paragraph is exactly that but you dismissed it). Part 97 is not concerned with how you receive, only how you transmit. I agree it is true that you can fool anyone on the receiving end as long as you can make the signal look like A1A on a spectrum analyzer. That might be difficult because the sidebands generated by breaking a CW "square" wave would be present on my A1A transmission and you would somehow have to re-create them on your SSB pure tone transmission that is keyed in your tightly filtered audio circuit. But re-check the definition of A1A and you will see that there is only one way to *transmit* it. And A1A is the only FCC definition of "CW". It is a moot point because tone generated data (as a sinusoidal "mark" in your SSB transmission) is legal everywhere that CW is legal. The same is not true of the voluntary band plans. It it is important to know the difference, even if you think the difference makes no difference so to speak. And I said that whistling CW into the mike is J3E voice, not A1A, and the only thing that separates it from being legal on the CW sub-bands is the way the data is coupled, not how it is received or transmitted. You completely missed all of my points. It has nothing to do with coupling. If you think the rules disallow the method of a tone into an SSB transmitter, then it would most definitely disallow whistling into the microphone. Here. I cooked up an example that might hopefully explain all this, but at this point I doubt it. Take a 2MHz oscillator, and you key that (or, key a buffer stage after that). Put it into a mixer, and the second input of the mixer is a 5MHz oscillator. Amplify it and feed it to the antenna. Now you've got a signal with a carrier (5MHz) and two sidebands (3MHz and 7MHz), not a good signal. So you make the mixer balanced so the oscillators don't appear at the output. That gets rid of the 5MHz "carrier", which leaves the two sidebands in place. But you don't want that, so you add some filtering to get rid of the unwanted sideband, let's make it the 3MHz signal. Thus you now end up with a 7MHz signal. How is this different from a 7MHz crystal oscillator being keyed and then amplified and feeding the antenna? How is this different from any number of SSB transmitters that also send CW? The rules don't allow it? But then a lot of SSB rigs break the rules, and that really fancy CW transmitter described in QST in the fall of 1971 would also break the rules. Oh wait, it's legal. But then why would a tone into an SSB transmitter be illegal according to the rules? The tone becomes the 2MHz oscillator. It's the same principle, just with a lower frequency being mixed with a radio freqeuncy. Of course you're going to get in trouble if you heterodyne two oscillators together and don't get rid of the unwanted signals. But, look at the output of the transmitter, and if it's designed properly and adjusted properly, you cannot tell the difference between that heterodyne transmitter and that simple 1 oscillator transmitter. You have one radio signal at the output of that transmitter, and you can't tell how it is generated. Same with injecting a tone into an SSB transmitter. You will get one signal at the output of that transmitter if the tone is pure enough and carrier and unwanted sideband are properly suppressed. You want to come up with some special case for this method, when the other rules would take care of any problems. If you've got more than one signal out of that transmitter, then you've got a spur, and there are rules about that. The rules aren't about how you can generate a spur-free signal, or allow spurs if you followed a certain scheme, they are about not allowing spurs. Take your simple CW transmitter. So the AC from the filament starts modulating the oscillator tube, and suddenly you have an AM signal (ie the keyed carrier and the two sidebands caused by the 60Hz ac signal). Nobody is going to say "Oh, you've done that wrong, it's illegal". They are going to say "You'd better do something about that AM signal in the CW band". Use an audio tone with harmonic content into the SSB transmitter and then that signal when translated to radio frequencies will result in multiple outputs, which is against the law. Have bad carrier suppression in the SSB transmitter, and you'll get two outputs, again something which is against the law. Have bad unwanted carrier suppression and you'll have to sidebands at the output of that transmitter, yet again something against the rules. But do it properly, and wham, you only have one signal and nobody know, or cares, how you generate it. Once again, it's no different than a crystal oscillator feeding an amplifier; nobody cares how you generate that CW signal, but they will care a lot if you've got hum on the signal or you've got a harmonic. In the end, you are waving your hands at your interpretation of the rules, but can't even dig up those rules that you think mean what you say. Yet you also can't explain the KWM-2 that used tone injection to generate CW (surely Collins wouldn't have used the method if it wasn't allowed) and I"m sure there were some other rigs of that same vintage that used the same scheme. There were certainly articles in the ham magazines about using the method to add CW to rigs that were SSB only. You can't explain all those hams who used a frequency shifted audio oscillator into an SSB transmitter to get FSK. Surely that would be wrong if the FCC didn't allow the use of a tone to generate CW with an SSB transmitter, though the principal is exactly the same. Michael VE2BVW |
One way to promote learning of code ...
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: wrote: As long as there is a single one out there... Sigh...that's about the ONLY thing that justifies their mean way of acting. How do you justify your behavior here, Len? How do you justify your behavior here, Dave? That's an easy one, hot-ham-and-cheese. I don't go into a rant like Leonard Anderson. I don't pontificate in long, windy posts like Leonard Anderson. Unlike Leonard Anderson, I don't pretend to be a part of an endeavor in which I am not involved. Dave K8MN |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: wrote: As long as there is a single one out there... Sigh...that's about the ONLY thing that justifies their mean way of acting. How do you justify your behavior here, Len? How do you justify your behavior here, Dave? That's an easy one, hot-ham-and-cheese. I don't go into a rant like Leonard Anderson. I don't pontificate in long, windy posts like Leonard Anderson. Unlike Leonard Anderson, I don't pretend to be a part of an endeavor in which I am not involved. Dave K8MN Lots about Len Anderson. I was hoping that you might say something about yourself... .... but I guess there isn't much to say. Your constant little jabs are enough. |
One way to promote learning of code ...
wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 23:46:39 -0500, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote: wrote in message roups.com... First let me say that, in amateur radio use, the term "CW", when used to mean a mode of radio communication, is universally defined as "Morse Code radiotelegraphy by means of an on-off keyed carrier". The literal "continuous wave" meaning does not apply. Stefan Wolfe wrote: wrote in message ups.com... The big question is whether the signals (keyed carrier vs. keyed audio tone) look different on a spectrum analyzer. If they don't, why should FCC care? I agree that it doesn't matter to the FCC as long is the keyed audio tone is coupled to the radio with EM waves such as with light (optoisolators), RF or wires (electrical connections). However, if you couple the keyed audio carrier acoustically, speaker-to-mike using only sound waves, then that is J3E and only permissible in the voice portion of the band. No, that's just not true - *IF* the rig and tone are clean enough. Problems arise when the tone is not a pure sinusoid, or the transmitter does not have adequate carrier- or unwanted sideband-suppression. But that's not what is being discussed here. Feed a Morse-Code-keyed audio tone that is a pure sinusoid into an SSB transmitter of sufficient quality, and the result is "CW". It doesn't matter how the tone gets into the transmitter, as long as the process doesn't introduce other tones or artifacts. If I were to whistle nearly pure sine waves (I am a good whistler, perhaps you have seen paintings of my mother :-)) in Morse code into the mike input, it might look like CW and sound like CW but it would really be J3E, hence illegal in the CW sub-bands. No, that's not true, unless the whistle isn't a pure sine wave. Using acoustic coupling (J3E), it becomes a slippery slope; first computer generated tones, then human whistling, then humming and before you know it, "talking" (di dah di dah etc.. and finally, "words" :-)) Not a slippery slope at all. All that matters is what it looks like to a spectrum analyzer. If the whistle is a pure sine wave, the output will be a single carrier. But if it's not a pure sine wave, the result will be spectrally different, and illegal. From a regulations standpoint, it does not matter how the signal is generated. What does matter is that it meets the standards of spectrum purity. Now you might argue that a simple "CW" transmitter using keyed Class C stages and vacuum tubes can be much simpler, more electrically efficient, and certainly more elegant than a newfangled computer-SSB-transceiver-kluge-setup, yet deliver a signal of equal quality. That's true - but it's a different issue. I give up. indeed you see his style of deabte evade nit pick and sidestepp avoid anything You keep talking about how the signal looks when it is *received*. I keep talking about how the true A1A signal is supposed to be *transmitted* (your last paragraph is exactly that but you dismissed it). Part 97 is not concerned with how you receive, only how you transmit. even the rules must yeld to "logic" of the ProCoders I agree it is true that you can fool anyone on the receiving end as long as you can make the signal look like A1A on a spectrum analyzer. That might be difficult because the sidebands generated by breaking a CW "square" wave would be present on my A1A transmission and you would somehow have to re-create them on your SSB pure tone transmission that is keyed in your tightly filtered audio circuit. But re-check the definition of A1A and you will see that there is only one way to *transmit* it. And A1A is the only FCC definition of "CW". It is a moot point because tone generated data (as a sinusoidal "mark" in your SSB transmission) is legal everywhere that CW is legal. The same is not true of the voluntary band plans. It it is important to know the difference, even if you think the difference makes no difference so to speak. And I said that whistling CW into the mike is J3E voice, not A1A, and the only thing that separates it from being legal on the CW sub-bands is the way the data is coupled, not how it is received or transmitted. You completely missed all of my points. he is very good at missing points OTOH it is one of the more legit styles used by th e ProCode Luddites on here http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ Ummm....surprize, I am not/never was pro-code "test" but I think copying code in one's head once in a while is a good mental exercise. Do you ever do anything to exercise the mind? The physical analogue would be riding a bicycle. It has value and can be enjoyable for some but I agree you should not have to pass a bicycle riding test to get an automobile drivers license. However, as a driver, I guess I would be slightly embarrassed if people found out I did not know how to ride a bike ;-)) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com