CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabril

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea
From: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Reply-to: k9yc@arrl.net
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:26:01 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
On Mon,4/13/2015 6:53 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
However, the rules make no
attempt to define excessive bandwidth, and I'm not
aware of any penalties having been imposed for this
reason alone.  If I'm wrong, I'd be happy to be
corrected.

I'm guessing that this is for the same reason that the FCC Rules are written more or less the same -- the minimum bandwidth required for the means of transmission. That allows for progression of the state of the art, and measurements by ARRL Labs show that the current leader for CW cleanliness is the Elecraft K3.

This, then, defines the minimum bandwidth required for transmission. Second in line seems to be the Kenwood TS590. ICOM's and Yaesu's big boats using keying that burns at least twice the bandwidth, and this after Yaesu's recent firmware upgrade. Before that it was four times wider.

Further, those numbers assume the user has selected the slowest rise time from the rig's menu system. If a faster rise time is selected, occupied bandwidth increases.

I've found that I can make measurements with about 75 dB of dynamic range and very high frequency resolution with a P3/SVGA connected to a K3 as long as I take care to keep that test setup out of overload. This test platform isn't nearly good enough to compare the best radios for phase noise, which should be much better than 120 dB below the signal, but it IS good enough to yield good data down to at least 70 dB below the signal with resolution of a few Hz. It's nearly 100X better than my HP8590D!

This dynamic range can be achieved only with a dummy load and a tap feeding the test set, but can be approached with a very strong signal on a dead band. I used this setup to test N6TA's FTDX5000 before and after he did the firmware upgrade. The improvement is substantial below 40 dB, but doesn't do much above that level.

With the measurements I've done, The FTDX5000 and K3 perform quite comparably on SSB, and I suspect we will see that with other rigs in this class. The trash on SSB and RTTY comes from overdrive in the system -- everything from clipping in the audio chain to IMD in the RF chain, the use of AGC to set drive to a power amp, and failure to match power amps carefully to the antenna. Spectral displays that provide waterfalls clearly show splatter produced by SSB signals as horizontal lines on splatter peaks.

I think it's long past time for those of us who can accurately observe this stuff to be naming names and submitting that info to the contest sponsors.

73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>