|
|
"Bert Craig" wrote in message v.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: The point is that hams actually using CW/Morse for communications don't gather anywhere near as many enforcement actions as hams using 'phone modes for communications. The difference is far more than can be accounted for by the greater popularity of 'phone modes. Is there a CW equivalent of the W6NUT repeater, 14,313 or 3950? We're not quite above such things. Yes, we are. Agreed. Agreed about what?? That CW ops are "infractionless" wrt to knowingly interfering with each other? You oughta been there the nite in the early '70s when the Big Guns got together and decided to hammer Radio Moscow off a freq around 7.030. You bet it worked, Moscow moved up the band and didn't come back. That was hams uniting to repel an illegal intruder. 7.000 to 7.100 has been worldwide exclusive amateur since at least 1929. Was that action legal, Jim? I certainly believe that it was the correct action, given the circumstances. I'd always believed that deliberate interference was illegal no matter what and that that intruders were to be handled by the FCC. Radio Moscow wasn't/isn't particularly concerned about what the FCC does or doesn't do or think. There's a procedure for handling foreign intruders via diplomatic channels. So a bunch of guys with beams at 150 feet and kilowatts to spare saved the FCC and State from that drudgery and got the job done in 15 minutes. Was there any enforcement action from FCC? I'm curious about that too, was there? The only place I saw anything about it in print was in a subsequent weekly spots bulletin where a few attaboys got passed around. Not a peep about it in QST. 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian Kelly wrote: You oughta been there the nite in the early '70s when the Big Guns got together and decided to hammer Radio Moscow off a freq around 7.030. You bet it worked, Moscow moved up the band and didn't come back. Nuther favorite trick was to zero beat 'em and work exactly on his frequency. That works fine. Sure does. I heard more than one mongo RTTY station jump 'em too. I always felt a bit sorry for the SWLs who got caught in the middle of that nonsense but oh well. w3rv |
|
(N2EY) wrote in
m: Alun Palmer wrote in message . .. (N2EY) wrote in om: Alun Palmer wrote in message . .. (N2EY) wrote in m: Alun Palmer wrote in message .. . "Dee D. Flint" wrote in y.com: "Alun Palmer" wrote in message ... "Phil Kane" wrote in .net: On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 07:41:03 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote: Very simple answer, Jim. The FCC has limited personnel today. The few they have simply don't have the time to sit around listening, as code users pound out their incredibly slow conversations, to catch violations. ;) For reasons that I disagreed with then and I disagree with now, (but that's another story) the FCC' s enforcement response is driven by complaints, not by "Patrolling the Ether" (tm) as in days of yore. How many complaints of amateur CW violations do you think "Riley" gets? (Somebody pounding out "FU" in Morse on a Touch-Tone (tm) pad on a repeater input does not count as CW....) -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon So what do we call it then? I have certainly heard (expletive deleted) sent in Morse on a repeater. That's awful. I haven't heard anything that bad on the CW/data subbands, though. Have you? I really do only use phone, so I wouldn't know what was being sent down there. I can assure you that such things don't happen nearly so often (if at all) on the CW subbands. Anyone who doubts this is invited to listen for themselves. Anything from an unidentified transmission to interference to jamming for starters depending on the exact events. It probably violates a number of FCC rules. Let's see: Obscenity, failure to ID, jamming, unauthorized use of a repeater. For starters. The point is that Phil is trying to say that jamming in MCW doesn't count as jamming in CW, which is like trying to say that there's a vital difference between using FM or SSB to jam. No, that's not the point at all. The point is that hams actually using CW/Morse for communications don't gather anywhere near as many enforcement actions as hams using 'phone modes for communications. The difference is far more than can be accounted for by the greater popularity of 'phone modes. Is there a CW equivalent of the W6NUT repeater, 14,313 or 3950? 73 de Jim, N2EY Probably not. That's my entire point. I have, however, heard endless repeated CQ calls sent in CW by US hams on top of DX phone ops who were innocently using their phone subbands, that happen to be regarded as CW frequencies in part 97. Frequency? Date, Time? 40m, when I'm looking for stations listening up 40 m is a band, not a frequency. Big difference between plopping down an SSB signal on 7030 and 7230. I mean between 7040 and 7100, which is phone, except here. I am 90% sure that it is deliberate jamming, and it is a long term ongoing situation. How do you know it is deliberate? It's hard to be sure. Maybe the fact that the CQ calls go on abnormally long is a clue, though. Certainly a possibility. Long CQ isn't the best practice. Perhaps the CQers could not hear the DX 'phones. They would probably claim that, either way It could be true, however. The US power limit is 1500 W out. 40 meter beams are common with the big guns. There can easily be a 30 dB difference between how well you hear a 1500 W + beam at 100' CW sig and how well he hears your 100 W and dipole SSB. Perhaps the DX phones were on top of US CW ops innocently sending CQ on frequencies that, by bandplan, are CW/digital. Innocent/ignorant - a fine dividing line, isn't it? Nope. Of course, by bandplan, the frequencies are phone too, just there, not here. Which is the real heart of the problem. And it's being fixed. I think you'll find it isn't being fixed. The ARRL bandplan is the only one out of step, so nobody else is likely to change theirs, notwithstanding Europe and some other areas getting 7100-7200 as additional spectrum in 2007. All that will happen is that a DX window will appear from 7150-7200, but the DX will continue to use phone everywhere they use it now - indefinitely. Sorry to be the one to break that to you! The FCC has definite criteria for deliberate interference. One criterion is if a station allegedly being interfered with changes frequency, and the alleged interferer changes frequency too. Presumably the perpetrators are too ignorant to understand that FCC rules end at the border? Who are "the perpetrators" in that case? The ones who are _not_ in QSO with anyone, who keep sending unanswered CQs for five minutes at a time, who didn't send QRU? before calling. Nobody sends QRU? before calling CQ. (It means "do you have anything for me?") The textbook procedure is to send QRL? ("Are you busy?") first. But that's unnecessarily long. A simple "?" will do the trick, or the most common "IE" (didit - dit), all of which have the same meaning. The reason for the shorter inquiries is so that if the freq IS in use, less gets messed up. It is not uncommon for me to hear exchanges like this: Station wishing to call CQ: "IE" ("Is the frequency in use?") Station on freq, working station the wouldbe CQer cannot hear: "C" ("Yes") Station wishing to call CQ: "SRI DE N2EY" ("sorry, bye, ID so you know who it was") I will try listening for IE. I was expecting a Q signal. You are presuming guilt without adequate proof. Do you have any evidence that the alleged violators could hear the alleged victims? No, that would be impossible to prove If you QSY and they follow, that's proof enough for the FCC. Or evidence that the alleged victims were using the frequency first, rather than the other way around? Yes, or at least I would have if I taped them. Most CW ops use narrow filters - 500, 400, 250 Hz are common choices.* Useless for 'phone, of course. The CQers may not have realized how close they were to the DX 'phones. How much room should a CW station give a weak 'phone station? I'm not talking about co-channel here, I mean right on top. "Right on top" is a lot of room. The CW signal needs maybe 250Hz tops, the SSB ten times that. Granted. To be more specific, the CW beat note sounds in the normal range, i.e. 800 Hz +- when the SSB is tuned in. This of course would be what you would get if they netted onto the SSB and then offset by their usual amount. Point is that what sounds like "right on top" may not sound that way to the other guy. It depends which side of the nominal carrier frequency the CW signal is on. However, assuming my SSB filter is working, I would say they were low, i.e. on the same side as the LSB sideband, or I would be filtering them out. This also puts them almost in the middle of the SSB signal, doesn't it? Listen to a busy CW contest with a wide (AM bandwidth) rx and it sounds like a pile of intentional inteference. Switch in appropriate filters and you find that almost all of the stations have spaced themselves so they don't overlap. Neither am I talking about weak phone stations, although they could be weak at some other QTH. That's another point. Of course the DX 'phones could have switched to CW and answered the CQers, then politely asked them to move. But they didn't, did they? *My Southgate Type 7 has two cascaded 8 pole 500 Hz crystal filters, giving an effective bandwidth of less than 400 Hz and very steep filter skirts. And it has an audio LC filter as well. So, if say, you called QRU? on 7080 and there was a strong signal SSB QSO in progress, would you be able to tell? This is a genuine question. I would listen first and steer clear of anyhting that sounds like SSB. Then I'd send "IE" a few times to test the waters. If I heard something start up when I did that, I'd move. But usually I am below 7060. Above about 7060 is data and foreign SSB country. I don't posses a CW filter. One of the reasons some hams get turned off to CW is that they use equipment that really isn't meant for the mode. Most HF rigs today are primarily SSB rigs with CW tacked on. Some are pretty good, many are awful. If I need it I have an outboard audio filter (a Radio Shack DSP unit, which is fairly basic and suffers from low audio output). I hadn't thought about that when I said I had no CW filter. It tends to 'take off' on 20 with RF getting inside it, but it's OK on 40. I am guessing you would hear something,though? Depends on the situation. Usually SSB sounds like monkey chatter through a narrow filter. But near the edges it can be very weak or inaudible. As I've explained, I think this is going on in the middle of the SSB sigs, which is another reason to be suspicious The best solution is for wide and narrow modes to have their own subbands. They simply don't mix well. Yes A notch filter can remove a carrier or CW signal. 73 de Jim, N2EY True, not that I have one, though 73 de Alun, N3KIP |
(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com... (N2EY) wrote in message ... We're not quite above such things. Yes, we are. Maybe your "we" but I've run into some other "we's" on CW who are not as lily-white. The infamous antics in the CW pileups on Don Miller come to mind for one. That was 35+ years ago. If you have to go back that far to find a one bad guy on CW, that's pretty good, I think. I didn't *have* to go back 35 years, I only went back 35 years because everybody knows the Don Miller story. I would bet most hams don't know it. OK but we do. He's outa jail, too. Real nice fella that one. A doctor, too. Picked up a law degree while he was locked up. I need to point out here that, quite contrary to the folklore about the "ethical purity" of the brass-pounding OFs of yore, that it was those sainted OFs who blitzed Miller. And they were not refugees from 11M or any of the current crop of codeless wonders. They *all* hiked uphill both ways thru blizzards, etc., etc. . . . What story are we talking about anyway? How a number of CW ops intentionally jammed Miller then per 3.950 today. And they didn't do it running barefoot. I'm thinking of how he lied about where his DXpeditions were. The jamming occurred based only on the *suspicion* that Miller was not operating from where he said he was well before any of it landed in the courts. The jamming was completely out of line no matter how you look at it. Or maybe where he was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder (attempted) (IIRC) As far as the 35 year thing goes I only have to go back to a club meeting this past June for a current example. A well-known two-lander who is in the habit of busting CW contest records has a couple CW stalkers up his butt and described the annoying situation. "Stalkers"? A couple jerks following him around the bands and keying up on him during the contests. I fully agree that the bull**** level in the CW portions of the bands is much, much lower than it is up the bands. That's all I'm saying. Nobody's perfect, and no mode or test or fancy hardware/software will make everyone behave perfectly 100% of the time. For absolute certain. But that doesn't mean there's no difference. I agree with that but you were talking in terms of absolutes. 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
|
In article , Alun Palmer
writes: (N2EY) wrote in : In article , Alun Palmer writes: 40 m is a band, not a frequency. Big difference between plopping down an SSB signal on 7030 and 7230. I mean between 7040 and 7100, which is phone, except here. "Here" is all of Region 2. A big part of the world. No, only the USA, it's still phone in the rest of R2 No, it isn't. Other modes are authorized, not just 'phone. I think you'll find it isn't being fixed. Sure it is, but it will take time. Before the end of the decade 7000-7200 will be worldwide exclusive amateur. That's double what Region 1 and Region 3 have now. It will make sense for those regions to move their 'phone up above 7100 and leave below 7100 to CW and digital. Not while the US has CW in 7100-7150. As long as that's the case it makes more sense _to_them_ to leave 7000-7100 unchanged and split the 'new' 7100-7200 50/50. Net gain to you - zero. If it gets the foreign 'phones off of 7030, it's a gain. The ARRL bandplan is the only one out of step, so nobody else is likely to change theirs, notwithstanding Europe and some other areas getting 7100-7200 as additional spectrum in 2007. What part of the world will not get 7100-7200? None There you are. And why should Region 2 change now, with the band getting wider? You mean the US, and I don't suppose the ARRL will change It's not just ARRL but FCC. All that will happen is that a DX window will appear from 7150-7200, but the DX will continue to use phone everywhere they use it now - indefinitely. Sorry to be the one to break that to you! So their lack of a bandplan and good manners should cause the USA to follow their lead? I think not! They have a bandplan. Phone stays above at least 7040, except 7030 in R3. There are Canadians operating LSB on 7030. That's not the bandplan you want, but it's a bandplan. The reference to good manners I don't follow. The folks who don't follow the bandplan have bad manners. Having a Canadian SSB net on 7030 when they have 7000-7030 is bad manners. I don't expect the USA to follow anyone's lead. Just don't be surprised when no-one follows the USA's lead either. And the result is chaos. 800 is pretty high. 600-700 is more common among CW ops. The SSB audio passband is typically 300-2700 Hz, so 600 or even 800 is pretty low. 1500 would be smack in the middle. True enough This of course would be what you would get if they netted onto the SSB and then offset by their usual amount. There is no offset in CW. The carriers are all on the same frequency. Point is that what sounds like "right on top" may not sound that way to the other guy. It depends which side of the nominal carrier frequency the CW signal is on. However, assuming my SSB filter is working, I would say they were low, i.e. on the same side as the LSB sideband, or I would be filtering them out. This also puts them almost in the middle of the SSB signal, doesn't it? No. Their tone would be 1500 if it were in the middle. Listen to a busy CW contest with a wide (AM bandwidth) rx and it sounds like a pile of intentional inteference. Switch in appropriate filters and you find that almost all of the stations have spaced themselves so they don't overlap. Neither am I talking about weak phone stations, although they could be weak at some other QTH. That's another point. Of course the DX 'phones could have switched to CW and answered the CQers, then politely asked them to move. But they didn't, did they? *My Southgate Type 7 has two cascaded 8 pole 500 Hz crystal filters, giving an effective bandwidth of less than 400 Hz and very steep filter skirts. And it has an audio LC filter as well. So, if say, you called QRU? on 7080 and there was a strong signal SSB QSO in progress, would you be able to tell? This is a genuine question. I would listen first and steer clear of anyhting that sounds like SSB. Then I'd send "IE" a few times to test the waters. If I heard something start up when I did that, I'd move. But usually I am below 7060. Above about 7060 is data and foreign SSB country. I don't posses a CW filter. One of the reasons some hams get turned off to CW is that they use equipment that really isn't meant for the mode. Most HF rigs today are primarily SSB rigs with CW tacked on. Some are pretty good, many are awful. If I need it I have an outboard audio filter Ugh. Audio filters are no substitute for IF filtering. And unless the AGC is turned off, QRM can dominate the receiver. True, but I don't really need a narrow CW filter for anything Data modes. (a Radio Shack DSP unit, which is fairly basic and suffers from low audio output). I hadn't thought about that when I said I had no CW filter. It tends to 'take off' on 20 with RF getting inside it, but it's OK on 40. What sort of rig? I use an IC-729 in my shack. Excellent receiver RF performance. Compared to what? No offense, but there are some really good rigs out there. Not very good audio, though. Ironically it has nowhere to fit a narrow SSB filter, but has a place for a CW filter (nothing in there, of course). Couldn't a narrow SSB filter be put in the CW slot? Not the Rolls Royce of radios, but I'm not overloaded with cash. The Southgate Type 7 cost me less than $100 to build. I am guessing you would hear something,though? Depends on the situation. Usually SSB sounds like monkey chatter through a narrow filter. But near the edges it can be very weak or inaudible. As I've explained, I think this is going on in the middle of the SSB sigs, which is another reason to be suspicious Sure. But 1500 is the middle, not 800. The best solution is for wide and narrow modes to have their own subbands. They simply don't mix well. Yes So when will the rest of the world get on the beam and have nonphone subbands? They do, and they have done as long as I remember. In some countries they are voluntary, and in others they are compulsory, but nowhere are they as wide as in the USA. Time for them to get on the beam, then. A notch filter can remove a carrier or CW signal. True, not that I have one, though Well, there you have it. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message om... . . . I take umbrage with those who over-hype CW on the basis of the purity of the souls who practice the art & science. It just ain't so, we're all just people. 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv FWIW, Larry has reported that his "friend" sends QFU. We all worked 4Q2TOO in the low end of 80, "The Island of Ambrosio". I didn't work Larry's "friend." |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com