[amsat-bb] Re: Listening on USB when operating CW

[Rich/wa4bue]

1/2 the time I do not have a key plugged into the rig.  I do call a CW op on 
SSB but have not had a reply.

Back in the 80s there were a lot more CW ops.

Anyway I have no complaint any OSCAR contact is a good one.

Wish I could have worked the Alaska station today, awesome signal.  Hope he 
made a lot of "Qs".

God Bless

R
W4BUE
K4AMG.org club

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <tosca005 at umn.edu>
To: "Kevin M" <n4ufo at yahoo.com>
Cc: <amsat-bb at amsat.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 12:33 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Listening on USB when operating CW


> Kevin:
>
> I don't think that the OP was trying to complain about SSB operators being 
> less capable or less polite or less facile in their Doppler tuning 
> correction or whatever in comparison to CW operators. He was just making 
> an observation that sometimes two pairs of communicating operators have 
> their frequencies "collide" due to shifting Doppler and different ways of 
> tracking the tuning to compensate.
>
> The issue is that (at least on all of my radios), when you are set to 
> receive in CW mode the radio does narrow its bandwidth considerably to get 
> the maximum benefit of CW's narrower frequency bandwidth requirement, 
> which is part of what makes it able to dig deeper into the noise level and 
> pull out an intelligible signal. When I am set to receive in CW and tune 
> in an SSB station (for example, during a terrestrial contest when there 
> are lots of signals of both types present), I can't understand the SSB 
> conversation, but if I am set to receive in SSB, the radio sets a wider 
> bandwidth and I can hear a CW signal quite well, and understanding it is 
> mainly dependent on how well or poorly I can copy CW at all. So the OP was 
> pointing out that if the CW operator was set to receive in SSB instead of 
> CW, he would lose the selectivity of the narrower bandwidth but probably 
> would still be able to copy the CW signal, with the added benefit of being 
> able to hear and understand a SSB QSO whose frequency happened to collide 
> with his CW operating frequency. No judgment was meant to be implied on 
> who intruded on whom, or why (strictly because of shifting Doppler vs. 
> different techniques of Doppler tuning correction). Just that for whatever 
> combination of reasons, the two QSO's happened to cross frequencies and 
> intrude on one another. By listening in SSB mode the CW operator would 
> become more aware of the intrusion and could better adjust his tuning to 
> avoid it or move away from the colliding signal.
>
> When I am operating in a terrestrial VHF/UHF/microwave contest, there are 
> times when I can hear an operator well enough to copy him on SSB, but he 
> is unable to hear me well enough to copy me on SSB. I will then switch to 
> CW mode and send my information that way, counting on the superior 
> legibility of CW (to an operator who understands CW) to get my information 
> across. The problem that arises is that if the other operator copies my CW 
> and realizes that I copied his SSB just fine, he may reply in SSB (because 
> he doesn't have to change any settings on his radio, he just hits the 
> transmit button and talks), and with my radio set to CW mode, I can no 
> longer copy him legibly. So I have to quickly switch back to SSB mode as 
> soon as I finish sending my CW to hear his SSB reply. I guess my point is 
> simply that while I have not experienced the exact problem that the OP was 
> talking about, since I don't normally operate CW on the satellites, I 
> understand what he is talking about regarding the legibility of a CW 
> signal in SSB receive mode vs. the illegibility of an SSB signal in CW 
> receive mode.
>
> Bottom line: if you can hear the CW coming down from the satellite well 
> enough in SSB mode, it might very well be a good idea to listen in that 
> fashion. It may or may not be easy to configure your radio(s) to transmit 
> CW and listen to SSB, but if you can do it, and not lose the CW signal in 
> the noise, it may be a good way to go.
>
> 73 de John Toscano, W0JT/5, AMSAT-NA LM#2292
>
> On Feb 7 2014, Kevin M wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> Computer-control stations and manual-control stations are adjusting for
>>> Doppler differently. I have done - and will continue to do - both. In my
>>> opinion, neither is incorrect; they simply differ from each other.
>>
>>
> This was posted during the assemblage of my long winded reply. I think it 
> gets at the same thing I was beating around the bush at. I'm glad to know 
> when I am eventually able to get back on the linear birds (yagis, preamps, 
> cables and rotor in the closet... conduit for burying piled up outside) I 
> will be able to find someone to work without getting my rig hooked up to a 
> PC. (It will be enough to get the rotor hooked up to one!) I just hope I 
> can remember which dial to turn when... anyone hearing me screw the pooch, 
> please send instructions promptly! X^D
>>
>>73 all,
>>
>>Kevin, N4UFO
>>proud to be a full fledged Gridiot!
>>_______________________________________________
>>Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
>>Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
>>Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb