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.