[CQ-Contest] W4ZV's Most Disruptive Contest

[i4jmy at iol.it]

CW BW is so small like a line on the frequencies domain only on theory 
books using hypotethical transmitters.
In other words a zero BW exists when a carrier hasn't inherent noise 
and isn't keyed: a moderate BW take place when keying is slow enough 
with smooth rise and fall times.
A tone can surely be notched pushing a button, but this is a fake 
explaination since the tone is not the carrier bandwith and the RF 
noise and CW *clicks* will stay and pollute in the around. 
Most recent TX engineering didn't minimize but skyrocketed the listed 
effects and the generated noises doesn't drop at all so rapidly (off 
the frequency) in the band noise beeing evident when the received 
signal is loud, even on 160m.
We all know that out of a limited number of technical Hams, even if 
some modifications are possible to minimize such problems, the majority 
of the bad transmitters will remain like that and things will be worse 
than in the past.
Without starting a debate on the Fourier analysis to define a real CW 
bandwith, what's out of the reflector purposes and doesn't modify 
reality, to have an idea of reality it's enough to try listening what's 
in the nearby of a loud and typical CW signal, expecially in a contest, 
but not only.
CW bandwith is times smaller than SSB but the actual noise generated in 
its around is well present and bothering, and when those signals are 
loud the ratio of available channels is limited also on CW.
The advantage of CW is in allowing narrower filters and a much better 
S/N that allows detection of what's unreadable in a wider mode, but 
also in a *code* that allows who hasn't the gift to speak a foreign 
language or to detect multiple tones in the noise to understand the 
information and have a QSO with low S/N.
The above advantage in S/N doesn't mean that any other mode than CW 
hasn't sense and it's well known that good operators on both modes are 
quite rare so explaining that SSB detection and technique in marginal 
situations is just an art likewise CW is, but in a different way.

Back to the original topic, 160m is often a band empty with Ham signals 
where room for both modes exists.


73,
Mauri I4JMY

 
> Not so. The beauty of CW is you can notch it right out without 
> hurting a wider SSB signal. 
> 
> On the other hand, a wide SSB signal can not be notched from a 
> narrower signal without destroying the narrow signal.
> 
> This is traditionally why wider modes are restricted to certain areas 
> away from narrow modes, while narrow modes are allowed wide 
> latitude. Even in the 1940's we had the technology to remove 
> narrow signals without disturbing wide signals significantly.
> 
> Given a choice, I'd much rather be required to notch a few strong 
> CW signals from a weak SSB signal than attempt to copy a weak 
> SSB signal through splatter from another SSB station!!
> 
> Any more all it takes is one button push, and the CW is virtually 
> gone. 
> 73, Tom W8JI
> W8JI at contesting.com 


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


>From Mike" <W4EF at dellroy.com  Wed Aug 22 14:39:22 2001
From: Mike" <W4EF at dellroy.com (Mike)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 06:39:22 -0700
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Split on 160 SSB?
References: <1.5.4.32.20010821171329.006bc974 at pop.vnet.net>
Message-ID: <094a01c12b0f$daa78500$6401a8c0 at neptune>


The interesting thing to see will be what happens when a loud European plops
down on 1835 KHz in the CQ 160 SSB and starts calling CQ listening transceive 
only. Without the heavy hand of FCC enforcement, I suspect that the self imposed
exile to the land above 1843 KHz will quickly end - e.g. enter the prisoners dilemma - 
"If Joe works him, and I don't, I will be at a disadvantage". As N8VW points out,
the only hope short of an FCC rule change will be Contest Sponsors bold enough
to DQ the bandplan violators en masse. 

73 de Mike, W4EF.....................

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Tippett" <btippett at alum.mit.edu>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>; <thompson at mindspring.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Split on 160 SSB?


> 
> Hi Dave (and please forward to the CQ 160 Contest Committee):
> 
> K4JRB wrote:
> "The proposal for DX stations using 1843 to 1850 and listening up (above
> 1850) will lead to the same problems that we now have on 40 and 75 SSB.
> 
>         Dave, first the bandplan is for DX stations BELOW 1843 and listening
> up.  Imagine for a moment what the situation would be like on
> 40 and 75 if NA were allowed in the same area as DX.  You would have a
> few of the BIG stations (multi-multis, multi-singles and big SOAB stations
> using stacked Yagi's, 4-squares, etc calling CQ in the same area as the
> DX.  This is the same situation we presently have with the area below
> 3800...a few BIG stations will monopolize the frequency on either side of
> the Atlantic and everyone else is shut out.  In fact, the truly successful
> stations on 75 (M-M's, etc) long ago learned to transmit above 3800 and 
> listen below 3750.  Wonder why that is?  It's because that is the ONLY way 
> to hear the weaker stations!  And BTW it's the same technique DX stations
> have learned to use rather than trying to make themselves heard in the 
> din of the 3750-3800 area.
> 
>         As W8JI points out, the current situation on 160 is that you have
> a few BIG East Coast stations CQ-ing and listening with Beverages with 
> excellent F/B to the rear.  They can hear EU calling but heaven help someone 
> in the Midwest trying to hear much through their transmitted signals.  The
> 1830-35 window is fairly useless when you have S9+40 signals on either 
> side and BTW...imagine what it must sound like in EU with everyone trying
> to occupy the same window!  For those who like DX windows, think of 1843 and
> below being a LARGE DX WINDOW with the DX listening split for the weaker 
> signals they otherwise would never hear on their own frequency.  I still 
> recall hearing 5X4F in the CQ 160 SSB a few years ago CQ-ing at his sunrise 
> on 1825 with an S8 signal...and NOBODY could hear him (except a few of us
> on the East Coast with excellent RX antennas).
> 
>         Several have also mentioned problems with antenna bandwidth if we
> limited NA SSB to above 1843.  How much trouble is it to raise the resonance
> of most antennas?  Not much!  It means shorting out about 3 feet of wire in a 
> vertical/inverted-L/sloper or from each side of an inverted vee/dipole to 
> move resonance from 1830 to 1875.  In fact, with a limit at 1843, the TX 
> antenna actually has to cover LESS bandwidth (~157 kHz instead of 200 kHz) if
> you wanted to cover it all (which is really not necessary)!  Haven't we 
> learned how to do that on 75/80 meters?
> 
> "The better approach is to make 160 a world wide band.  This is the info I
> passed onto Tod K0TO (a committee member).   Then we can have a bandplan
> that keeps SSB and CW separate.  Until then it will never work!"
> 
>         A wonderful idea but not very practical...we can't even get everyone
> in the US to agree on anything...much less the rest of the world!  We did 
> see your input but I'm afraid I would never live long enough to see the kind
> of agreement that would take to push through all 3 ITU Regions.
> 
>         Just to clarify my feelings for all...I have NO problem with the
> CQ 160 SSB or any SSB contest on 160 IF they would just follow established
> bandplans (old OR new).  Heck, W8JI and I might just enter the CQ 160 SSB
> and raise the average score if the bandplan were followed!  :-)
> 
>                                                 73,  Bill  W4ZV
> 
> 
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
> 


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