Posted by
Guy, K2AV on
Feb 15, 2011; 10:00pm
URL: http://elecraft.85.s1.nabble.com/CW-ID-macro-on-SSB-tp6025949p6029472.html
What is a "real" CW signal? One that keys an oscillator?
K3 ain't your daddy's analog radio.
The K3 has the digital number stream elements for a pristine keyed CW signal
in firmware and feeds that into the TX digital to analog converter which
comes out in the 15 kHz TX IF. That signal proceeds to go through the same
analog amplification string as the SSB signals. Surely that's "cheating"
too. A real CW signal would have to be cleaned up by working on the delay
and state change constants derived from capacitors and resistors in the
circuitry, right?
The pristine CW signal of a K3 is derived by digital "cheating", since the
waveshape can be derived from a theoretical math curve that no one has ever
been able to make with resistors, inductors and capacitors.
We still got all our perceptual facilities stuck back in the analog muck.
Digital "cheating" all over the place in a K3.
73, Guy.
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> I agree. As another OT from the days when A.M. was king, I've always
> appreciated the clean simplicity of a real CW rig.
>
> An interesting offshoot of this point was the use of MCW on the high seas.
> Right up until CW was discontinued for emergency communications at sea in
> the late 1990's, all shipboard CW rigs had to be able to send double
> sideband AM MCW. That was a legacy from the days of spark, since spark was
> self-modulated and could be copied on any AM radio, even a crystal set. MCW
> was required for emergency calls to make sure every station within range
> could copy, no matter how old or limited their equipment.
>
> The shipboard operators normally ran pure CW with the modulator turned off
> for routine communications, but some liked to crank up the modulator
> whenever they wanted to be noticed. Listened to on a normal CW receiver
> with
> its BFO on, an MCW signal made a very distinctive cacophony of beat notes
> between the sidebands and carriers and the BFO.
>
> It's one technique that I don't think would appreciated by today's Ham
> operators fussing over CW signal bandwidths in the tens of Hz, even if it
> wasn't illegal, Hi!
>
> 73,
>
> Ron AC7AC
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> OK .. I goofed. Can I blame it on learning all this stuff back in the
> AM days? (when SSB stood for 'silly side band'.)
>
> It still seems inherently wrong to take digitally recorded version of
> a CPO output and use that in an attempt to create a CW signal. How
> much distortion does the record/play back add to the signal? Was the
> _original_ tone a good sine wave?
>
> A CW transmitter is a simple thing, why make a complicated one?
>
> Mark AD5SS
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home:
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft> Help:
http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm> Post: mailto:
[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by:
http://www.qsl.net> Please help support this email list:
http://www.qsl.net/donate.html>
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home:
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraftHelp:
http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htmPost: mailto:
[hidden email]
This list hosted by:
http://www.qsl.netPlease help support this email list:
http://www.qsl.net/donate.html