"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

The question kind of states it. I suppose that the BW might be wider as
the speed increases.

Mike,

The bandwidth of a Morse signal is determined by the rise and fall times
of the
leading and trailing edges of each dit or dah, and the shape of the rise
and
fall.


The reason I ask is that on 3580 tonight, we're all sitting there fat,
dumb, and happy, when W1AW starts it's CW broadcast.

Who is "we", Mike?

And it's some 700
kHz wide!!!

How did you determine the bandwidth?

And now I'd swear it's almost 3kHz wide. That's like SSB!!!

Yep. Such a bandwidth would require extremely "hard" keying, though. Or a
modulated carrier.

Needless to say, their strong signal was pretty tough on all us 5 and
ten watters. you could get most of a message through, but it took a lt
of the fun out of it.

Was the AGC on?

73 de Jim, N2EY


Part of the equation here is the receiver, as Jim N2EY was bringing up. A
lot of folks don't understand that actual bandwidth and apparant bandwith as
determined by a receiver are not the same in most cases.

Also I really don't see the problem, why did you just sit there? Were you
all rock bound or what?

Move frequency, were not channelized, yet.

Dan/W4NTI

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


The question kind of states it. I suppose that the BW might be wider as
the speed increases.

Mike,

The bandwidth of a Morse signal is determined by the rise and fall times

of the

leading and trailing edges of each dit or dah, and the shape of the rise

and

fall.


The reason I ask is that on 3580 tonight, we're all sitting there fat,
dumb, and happy, when W1AW starts it's CW broadcast.

Who is "we", Mike?


And it's some 700
kHz wide!!!

How did you determine the bandwidth?


And now I'd swear it's almost 3kHz wide. That's like SSB!!!

Yep. Such a bandwidth would require extremely "hard" keying, though. Or a
modulated carrier.

Needless to say, their strong signal was pretty tough on all us 5 and
ten watters. you could get most of a message through, but it took a lt
of the fun out of it.

Was the AGC on?

73 de Jim, N2EY



Part of the equation here is the receiver, as Jim N2EY was bringing up. A
lot of folks don't understand that actual bandwidth and apparant bandwith as
determined by a receiver are not the same in most cases.

Also I really don't see the problem, why did you just sit there? Were you
all rock bound or what?

Move frequency, were not channelized, yet.

That isn't my point, Dan. That wasn't a good signal W1AW was putting
out, and it was making a mess out of the local neighborhood. Usually PSK
and OOK Morse get along just fine.

My point is that by coming out with a ratty signal, W1AW was doing what
so many hams were complaining about K1MAN does. Fire it up, and too bad
for the rest of you.

That and wondering what a CW signal Bandwidth was in the first place.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

That isn't my point, Dan. That wasn't a good signal W1AW was putting
out, and it was making a mess out of the local neighborhood. Usually PSK
and OOK Morse get along just fine.

My point is that by coming out with a ratty signal, W1AW was doing what
so many hams were complaining about K1MAN does. Fire it up, and too bad
for the rest of you.

That and wondering what a CW signal Bandwidth was in the first place.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike, Mike, my boy, you just don't understand.

The ARRL is kind of like that "Home on the Range" song... where never
is heard a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day.

Don't be sayin nuttin bad bout the ARRL, nor their flagship broadcast
station W1AW. You'll get the wrath of the Old Man himself when you
get up to the Pearly Gates.

Someone wrote;
That and wondering what a CW signal Bandwidth was in the first place.
------------------------

From the ARRL License Manual 1976:

CW Bandwidth = wpm X 4
"With proper shaping, the necessary keying bandwidth is equal to 4
times the speed in words per minute for International Morse Code;
e.g. at 25 words per minute, the bandwidth is approximately 100 cycles.
e.g., 40 WPM = approximately 160 Hz"

--
73 From The Wilderness Keyboard

"Keyboard In The Wilderness" wrote in message news:JhiKb.46924$m83.10369@fed1read01...
Someone wrote;
That and wondering what a CW signal Bandwidth was in the first place.
------------------------

From the ARRL License Manual 1976:

CW Bandwidth = wpm X 4
"With proper shaping, the necessary keying bandwidth is equal to 4
times the speed in words per minute for International Morse Code;
e.g. at 25 words per minute, the bandwidth is approximately 100 cycles.
e.g., 40 WPM = approximately 160 Hz"

Does the ARRL License Manual of 1976 address Farnsworth code and bandwidth?

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Keyboard In The Wilderness" wrote in message
news:JhiKb.46924$m83.10369@fed1read01...
Someone wrote;
That and wondering what a CW signal Bandwidth was in the first
place.
------------------------

From the ARRL License Manual 1976:

CW Bandwidth = wpm X 4
"With proper shaping, the necessary keying bandwidth is equal to 4
times the speed in words per minute for International Morse Code;
e.g. at 25 words per minute, the bandwidth is approximately 100 cycles.
e.g., 40 WPM = approximately 160 Hz"

Does the ARRL License Manual of 1976 address Farnsworth code and
bandwidth?

The Farnsworth approach isn't even used for faster code speeds like 40wpm so
it is a moot point. However the calculation method would be to use the
character speed as the parameter in the calculation not the "effective word
speed" that is created by increasing the space between characters.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I suspect that for Farnsworth - just use the character speed - not the
overall speed with extended spacing.

--
73 From The Wilderness Keyboard
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Keyboard In The Wilderness" wrote in message
news:JhiKb.46924$m83.10369@fed1read01...
Someone wrote;
That and wondering what a CW signal Bandwidth was in the first
place.
------------------------

From the ARRL License Manual 1976:

CW Bandwidth = wpm X 4
"With proper shaping, the necessary keying bandwidth is equal to 4
times the speed in words per minute for International Morse Code;
e.g. at 25 words per minute, the bandwidth is approximately 100 cycles.
e.g., 40 WPM = approximately 160 Hz"

Does the ARRL License Manual of 1976 address Farnsworth code and
bandwidth?

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

That isn't my point, Dan. That wasn't a good signal W1AW was putting
out, and it was making a mess out of the local neighborhood. Usually PSK
and OOK Morse get along just fine.

My point is that by coming out with a ratty signal, W1AW was doing what

so many hams were complaining about K1MAN does. Fire it up, and too bad
for the rest of you.

That and wondering what a CW signal Bandwidth was in the first place.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike, Mike, my boy, you just don't understand.

The ARRL is kind of like that "Home on the Range" song... where never
is heard a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day.

Don't be sayin nuttin bad bout the ARRL, nor their flagship broadcast
station W1AW. You'll get the wrath of the Old Man himself when you
get up to the Pearly Gates.

If any individual hears "bad signals" on W1AW frequency, it is
obviously a fault of the individual's receiver/antenna/ears/imagination.
W1AW and ARRL can do no wrong.

LHA

Brian wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

That isn't my point, Dan. That wasn't a good signal W1AW was putting
out, and it was making a mess out of the local neighborhood. Usually PSK
and OOK Morse get along just fine.

My point is that by coming out with a ratty signal, W1AW was doing what
so many hams were complaining about K1MAN does. Fire it up, and too bad
for the rest of you.

That and wondering what a CW signal Bandwidth was in the first place.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike, Mike, my boy, you just don't understand.

The ARRL is kind of like that "Home on the Range" song... where never
is heard a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day.

Don't be sayin nuttin bad bout the ARRL, nor their flagship broadcast
station W1AW. You'll get the wrath of the Old Man himself when you
get up to the Pearly Gates.

I'll carry a Wouff Hong wit' me for protection!!

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

That wasn't a good signal W1AW was putting
out, and it was making a mess out of the local neighborhood.

Are you sure the W1AW signal was dirty? An overloaded receiver or soundcard
will do exaclty what you describe.

That doesn't mean it's impossible that W1AW had a problem, just that all things
need to be checked out. Have you listened to W1AW since then?

Usually PSK and OOK Morse get along just fine.

Depends on who's doing what. 3579 used to be a popular "glowbug" frequency for
Morse folks using simple rigs and a colorburst crystal. Then the freq was taken
over by PSK-31 due to the popularity of the "Warbler".

My point is that by coming out with a ratty signal, W1AW was doing
what so many hams were complaining about K1MAN does. Fire it up, and too bad
for the rest of you.

W1AW transmits bulletins and code practice on a published schedule, and is on
every HF amateur band simultaneously. Been doing that for almost 70 years now.
However, the signal should be clean.

Didja email them? Even that "professional" Harris stuff can go wacko.

73 de Jim, N2EY

That and wondering what a CW signal Bandwidth was in the first place.