[CQ-Contest] Re: Choice of CW Narrow filters

George Cutsogeorge w2vjn at rosenet.net
Sat Apr 17 22:11:35 EDT 1999

>>Sorry, I can't buy this one, and I don't think others should
either.  I
>>believe it's the height of rudeness to plop down within someone
>>500Hz bandwidth and blast away, then simply ignore the pleas of
>>fellow whose frequency you are essentially trying to steal.

In the beginning , transmitting and receiving bandwidths were
limited by antenna resonances only and were many MHz wide.  The
TRF and vacuum tube transmitters changed this to hundreds of kHz.
The super het and crystal oscillator transmitters came along and
bandwidths were in the 10s of kHz.  Early crystal filters were
introduced and CW stations could operate satisfactorily with 1 or
2 kHz spacing.  Quiet sythesizers were put into transmitters and
receivers as well as multipole cascaded crystal filters and
channel spacings down to a few hundred Hertz were very
comfortable.  Along comes DSP and signals may be separated by a
few 10s of Hz and still not interfere with each other.  A
properly shaped, fairly high speed CW signal only occupies 50 Hz
or so of spectrum.

I'm sure it was considered rude in 1910 to plop down within
someone elses 3 MHz and blast away.  It's not 1910 any more.  Why
are we all trying to have better receivers and quieter
transmitters.  Do we really want to tell the radio manufacturers
to hold back on those improvements.  The 1960 level of technology
is good enough for us.  Should we vote on what level of
technology is "right" for us?  Others may choose 1940, AM and
TPTG transmitters.

(Please ignor the actual numbers quoted and think about the


CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list