RE: [Elecraft] K2 CW speed
Paul wrote: One way to send cw wiht a keyboard and avoid the SSB issues is to use the free CWType software from DXSoft. You make a keying circuit with about 5 inexpensive Radio Shack parts and it will fit inside a larger Serial port plug. --- That is definitely the preferred way to key the K2 for computer-generated CW to 50 wpm or so. The comments about using an audio tone in SSB mode had to do with generating High Speed CW (HSCW) such as used for meteor scatter and similar work. That involves CW speeds of from about 100 up to 800 wpm or so. The rise and fall times of the keying wave shaping circuits in the K2 make it unsuitable for normal CW keying at such high speeds. Ron AC7AC ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] K2 CW speed
On Feb 22, 2005, at 11:43 AM, Andrew Moore wrote: Has anyone been successful in pushing the K2 beyond the 70 WPM external keying limit for CW operation? At 60 wpm, each element is 20 ms long. Given a 5 ms rise and fall time (assuming you've made the key-click mod), that's only 10ms of full-power signal. Going much faster than this may be impractical. Certainly the initial element is going to get clipped severely, and the K2 does not support CW PTT to prevent this. (This is probably a good request for the next revision of firmware -- but it would mean the internal keyer would be disabled) 100 wpm, elements are only 12 ms long - barely 2 ms at full output. At that speed, I'd begin to wonder about the group delay response of the remote receiver's filters Does it adhere to spec (70 WPM) or differ in practice? Anyone try any hardware or firmware mods to bump up the speed? I'd love for this great high performance CW rig (or even the K1 or KX1, despite the QRPish nature of them) to be able to handle up to 100 WPM. Here's my question - what person can copy 100 wpm? Only a handful of people in the world can copy 60 wpm! If this is meant for machine copy, then perhaps it is time to look at the lesson learned by the early HF RTTY users in the 1950s. At the time, FSK wasn't legal. These guys were running RTTY using OOK. It worked, but copy was poor. In theory, FSK has a 2 dB advantage over OOK in the presence of Gaussian noise. PSK has an additional 2 dB advantage over FSK. The bottom line -- if you are looking to run a 100 wpm data link on HF, there are a lot more robust methods of modulation than OOK - CW. FSK is gobs better, and you can run it up to 300 baud (using CW keying between mark and space, this would be 360 wpm, as 60 wpm is 50 baud) Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASELMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quote: Not within a thousand years will man ever fly! -- Wilbur Wright, 1901 ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] K2 CW speed
Here's my question - what person can copy 100 wpm? Only a handful of people in the world can copy 60 wpm! I'd guess it's a larger group than you might think -- though I'd agree those folks are few and far between. I've run into a handful than can copy 100, and I remember about 10 years ago I was in disbelief when a guy on a 2m repeater told me he could do over 100, so I put him on the spot and cranked up my computer's CW speed to 100, asked him a question in CW over the repeater, and he answered. Holy cow. The bottom line -- if you are looking to run a 100 wpm data link on HF Nope, this is for copy in the head. For some reason when I listen to folks QSO at 60 or 70 or higher, it just gets me really motivated, and all the enjoyment I experienced when I started fiddling with radios comes right back again (i.e., you mean you can talk to someone on the other side of the world, in real time, with less power than it takes to light a 10 watt bulb?!) It's great stuff. Having a machine copy it takes *all* the magic away for me. Sending of course needs a keyboard. Anyway, thanks for the comments, particularly the timing stuff. You really do need to be sending to someone with a very capable receiver. (hmm... hopefully a K2). You bring up a good point about a firmware PTT tweak -- it doesn't sound like a horribly complicated thing to implement, but then again, I don't know anything about the K2's firmware. I wonder if one could just hack the hardware to somehow keep TX engaged, even if it means manually throwing a switch -- equivalent to the PTT method but instead going right to the hardware. After all, we have the schematics (er, or I will once I order my new K2! :) Thanks, --Andrew, NV1B .. ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
RE: [Elecraft] K2 CW speed
100 wpm, elements are only 12 ms long - barely 2 ms at full output. At that speed, I'd begin to wonder about the group delay response of the remote receiver's filters I once asked about this on the Ten Tec reflector during a discussion of high speed CW, but some of the high-speed guys there assured me that they routinely copied 100 wpm without apparently being bothered by filter effects. I had a hard time believing this. They must use pretty wide filters to avoid the ringing or group delay effects that you mention, Bill. But they really didn't tell me for sure. Here's my question - what person can copy 100 wpm? Only a handful of people in the world can copy 60 wpm! You and I think alike... this was my exact next question to the guys. But again, they just sort of shrugged me off and never indicated that they thought they were pushing any limit of human ability. In fact, one guy told me that there is an entire group of folks who gets together on 40 meters at 100+ wpm! Around 7032 if I remember correctly. I've never heard them. At this speed Ted McElroy's world record, set back in the 1930s, should be threatened, but I don't know what is up with that. I believe-- though I am not sure-- that actually writing down (or typing) what you copy is really difficult at that speed. In other words, it is actually easier to simply copy in the head. McElroy's greatest achievement was evidently being able to produce a hard copy of what he heard. Regards, Al W6LX ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] K2 CW speed
When I was a novice, Cecil WA5SFZ, could copy 60WPM on a Mill, which was a typewriter version of a RTTY keyboard (all uppercase). Cecil smoked a pipe, a habit he picked up when copying news for press agencies (UPI?), as one of the perks of the job was free pipe-lighting service to keep the operators hands always on the keyboard. On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:05 am, Bill Coleman wrote: Here's my question - what person can copy 100 wpm? Only a handful of people in the world can copy 60 wpm! ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] K2 CW speed
On Feb 22, 2005, at 1:16 PM, Andrew Moore wrote: Here's my question - what person can copy 100 wpm? Only a handful of people in the world can copy 60 wpm! I'd guess it's a larger group than you might think -- though I'd agree those folks are few and far between. I've run into a handful than can copy 100, and I remember about 10 years ago I was in disbelief when a guy on a 2m repeater told me he could do over 100, so I put him on the spot and cranked up my computer's CW speed to 100, asked him a question in CW over the repeater, and he answered. Holy cow. Color me skeptical. I wonder if it is a mind reading trick. I wonder how accurate a computer sending CW would be at 100 wpm -- or how well it would sound passing through a repeater. The highest official CW speed was about 74 wpm, a record that was set decades ago and never overturned. If there's so many people who can copy north of 60 wpm, why has this record never been broken? The bottom line -- if you are looking to run a 100 wpm data link on HF Nope, this is for copy in the head. For some reason when I listen to folks QSO at 60 or 70 or higher, it just gets me really motivated, and all the enjoyment I experienced when I started fiddling with radios comes right back again Where are these 60 wpm and higher operators? The highest speed CW I hear is just north of 40 wpm -- during contests. I knew a couple of blind hams who ran the WV Novice Net almost three decades ago. They'd plug along at 5 wpm, close the net, then crank their keyboards to 50 wpm and have a QSO right there. But that's 50 wpm, not 70. You bring up a good point about a firmware PTT tweak -- it doesn't sound like a horribly complicated thing to implement, but then again, I don't know anything about the K2's firmware. It's something that's been brought up often enough by contesters. Whenever the next firmware revision comes out, it's something to anticipate. I wonder if one could just hack the hardware to somehow keep TX engaged, even if it means manually throwing a switch -- equivalent to the PTT method but instead going right to the hardware. After all, we have the schematics (er, or I will once I order my new K2! :) There is a modification to do this, implementing CW PTT: http://www.qsl.net/w3fpr/ptt_input_for_the_elecraft_k2.htm Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASELMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quote: Not within a thousand years will man ever fly! -- Wilbur Wright, 1901 ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] K2 CW speed
Color me skeptical. I wonder if it is a mind reading trick. I wonder how accurate a computer sending CW would be at 100 wpm -- or how well it would sound passing through a repeater. Not mind reading (he corrected me on my grammar too), nor machine copy (what are the chances he happened to have a CW reader then and there, or that the repeater and his own rx didn't distort such a high speed signal to the point at which a machine couldn't copy?) Copy at 100 isn't like at 20 or 25 where you copy 100%. I don't think these guys are necessarily copying (or even trying to copy) 100% at these rates -- just enough to carry on a conversation. At these rates the entire conversation is more -- well, conversational -- less rigid, more fluid and spontaneous, seat of the pants sort of stuff. It's just amazing to listen to them. Tom (Chester), W4BQF, is a good example. Frequently on 40m flying along at over 70. He's not the only one, just the one I hear most often. Given the number of people I've heard who can do 50 to 70 with ease, what I find hard to believe is that 74 is the official record. Maybe they mean 74 with the ability to reproduce it, 100%, on paper. At speeds of 75 or more, I don't know that there's an easy way to prove you hear what you hear. The best way I can see is to simply have a long conversation with someone at that rate, and the proof will be in the pudding, or however that saying goes. It will quickly become obvious whether or not the op is copying for real. decades ago and never overturned. If there's so many people who can copy north of 60 wpm, why has this record never been broken? I'd like to know! Again I suspect it's because of the way they determine success. Where are these 60 wpm and higher operators? The highest speed CW I hear is just north of 40 wpm -- during contests. They seem to be centered around 7.030 to 7.033 kHz in the evenings. The Chicken Fat Operators (CFO), a bunch of high speed ops, used to be very active there, but activity has died down alot starting around 10 years ago, about the time I got hooked on high speed and joined them. They're still out there though. Their roster must be over 1,000 members by now. I think about the only requirement for joining up was that you could carry on a QSO at 40 wpm or higher. Proof was by getting on the air with two members and QSO'ing with them in this manner. I'm just getting back HF after a while off (having kids will do that to you; where did the time (and money) go?!), and one of my priorities, if not my highest, is to get the speed back up (when I went inactive last, it was somewhat comfortable around 50 to 55, pushing at 60, and liked to practice at 70). One thing for sure, it does take practice. It's real, and it's possible, and more important, it's a blast. Way more fun than Thanks for pointing me to the PTT mod -- I took a look. Really need to order my K2... ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
RE: [Elecraft] K2 CW speed
... have astounded the audience by calmly sipping a cup of coffee then lighting an cigarette while the transmission blasted away before sitting down at the mill (typewriter with all cap letters specifically for copying CW). Then he is reported to have kept typing 15 minutes after the transmission ended to finish transcribing the entire text. I suspect that's exactly why the official record stands -- these guys aren't transcribing -- just conversing -- which, from what I know about them, is much more the point rather than boasting (no disrespect intended to McElroy -- quite an achievement on his part). High speed CW (HSCW) is, as far as I've read, all done via SSB. That is, the rig isn't keyed, but the CW is sent by a tone injected into the audio (microphone) input of an SSB rig. That produces a CW signal consisting of a single transmitted frequency, since no carrier and only one sideband is transmitted. This sounds interesting. I've never heard much about it. Are high speed CW ops using this in lieu of the real thing to get around rigs' limitations? Since it's on SSB, I assume it's not legal down in the conventional CW portion of the band. It sounds like it could be an easy way for QRQ CW to operate from any rig in the 70 to 100 range, or so. --Andrew, NV1B .. ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] K2 CW speed
In a message dated 2/22/2005 2:51:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, Bill Coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Feb 22, 2005, at 1:16 PM, Andrew Moore wrote: The highest official CW speed was about 74 wpm, a record that was set decades ago and never overturned. If there's so many people who can copy north of 60 wpm, why has this record never been broken? That was a record for hard copy - McElroy pounded out the copy on a *manual* typewriter! Head copy is a different animal. The folks who can copy 80-100 wpm or whatever aren't pounding keyboards with every received letter; they're listening to the code like someone talking. How fast can the average person carry on a verbal conversation vs. transcribing one? In highspeed contest operation, you're only looking for information in bursts - usually just call and report, maybe section/country. What McElroy was doing was for minutes at a time. -- For comparison, consider the test for US Navy Radioman A class (IIRC) circa 1958: 24 wpm 5 character code groups, copied on a manual typewriter (mill). Passing grade was a maximum of 3 errors. In an hour. 73 de Jim, N2EY ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] K2 CW speed
Andrew Moore wrote: This sounds interesting. I've never heard much about it. Are high speed CW ops using this in lieu of the real thing to get around rigs' limitations? Since it's on SSB, I assume it's not legal down in the conventional CW portion of the band. It sounds like it could be an easy way for QRQ CW to operate from any rig in the 70 to 100 range, or so. --Andrew, NV1B Most software for the digital modes include both sound card CW and hard keyed CW. You can't tell the difference on the air unless the op doesn't know the sidetone frequncy of his rig and has the frequency in the software set wrong. There won't be any QSK with sound card CW either. Up until I built a keying interface for my TS-520 thats how I ran CW. Hamscope or MixW and a rigblaster. Another happy benefit of audio injected CW, really afsk, is that there are no key clicks to be heard and you don't have to worry about rise and fall times of the keying waveform. -- R. Kevin Stover ACØH Reclaim Your Inbox! http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] K2 CW speed
On Tue, 2005-22-02 at 14:59 -0600, R. Kevin Stover wrote: Another happy benefit of audio injected CW, really afsk, is that there are no key clicks to be heard and you don't have to worry about rise and fall times of the keying waveform. Wouldn't that depend on the audio waveform fed into the SSB transmitter? I would expect an audio signal with small rise and fall times and/or poor waveform shaping would still cause keyclicks. Am I wrong, and if so, why? -- 73, Brian VE7NGR ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
RE: [Elecraft] K2 CW speed
Andrew, NV1B, wrote:
This sounds interesting. I've never heard much about it. Are high speed CW
ops using this in lieu of the real thing to get around rigs' limitations?
Since it's on SSB, I assume it's not legal down in the conventional CW
portion of the band. It sounds like it could be an easy way for QRQ CW to
operate from any rig in the 70 to 100 range, or so.
--
It's legal CW even though it's generated in SSB mode since only the single
frequency is transmitted, but I doubt if real HSCW be welcome (or legal) on
the HF CW bands because of the bandwidth. A CW signal, like any signal, has
sidebands that occupy a bandwidth directly proportional to the data rate. If
a CW signal is received on a too-narrow filter, the keying is lost: either
the signal appears as steady noise or a steady tone ('ultimate' filter
ringing!). For a normal CW transmission at some tens of WPM the bandwidth
needed is very small - only in the tens of Hz or less. HSCW at hundreds of
words per minute can require hundreds of Hz of bandwidth. That is on a
receiver using conventional CW filters it'd be heard as a strange tone with
very noisy, wide sidebands extending a long way on both sides of the carrier
frequency! The keying may not be at all evident.
But for something in the middle, 50 WPM and up, keying a tone into the mic
jack in SSB mode may be the way to go to avoid the shaping built into the
rig. The K2 lets you define the receive filters separately from the transmit
filter in SSB, so you can still have the flexibility of the K2's selectable
receive CW filters while transmitting using a keyed tone in SSB mode. If you
get really interested in pursuing it after you build your K2, jump on here
or contact elecraft directly. Wayne, the principal designer for the K2, is
always interested in new mods and uses for the rig and he's quick to offer
help and advice. There are a number of very talented and experienced
engineers on the reflector here who have contributed greatly to the
development of improvements for the K2 over the years who may be able to
offer their help as well. The support you get is one of the most valuable
benefits of owning an Elecraft rig.
The only possible issue I can think of is that in SSB mode, the frequency
display is the carrier frequency. So, if you tuned it up on 7030.00 kHz and
used a 500 Hz tone to key the rig, the actual transmit frequency would be
500 Hz above or below the displayed xmit frequency - that is either 7029.05
or 7030.05 kHz, depending upon which sideband you are using. The K2 has RIT
and full SPLIT operation, so you can adjust the receiver tuning
independently of the transmit frequency, so that shouldn't be a serious
issue.
I am certain that McElroy's record is for solid hard copy. That was back in
the days when a human being was an essential part of a manual RTTY or
TOR system designed for precise hard copy. The human's job was to convert
the sounds in the phones into precise strokes on the keys to make the right
letters! Head copy was not considered a very useful achievement.
It'd be interesting to see verifiable demonstrations of the sort of speeds
that are being achieved without hard copy.
Ron AC7AC
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] K2 CW speed
R. Kevin Stover wrote: Another happy benefit of audio injected CW, really afsk, is that there are no key clicks to be heard and you don't have to worry about rise and fall times of the keying waveform. The extent of the sidebands (and therefore the rise/fall times and the maximum speed that can be transmitted) are limited by the width of the ssb filter. A signal generated this way can be quite clicky -- I would consider a 3 KHz wide CW signal way too wide. -- 73, Vic, K2VCO Fresno CA http://www.qsl.net/k2vco ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
RE: [Elecraft] K2 CW speed
Vic wrote: The extent of the sidebands (and therefore the rise/fall times and the maximum speed that can be transmitted) are limited by the width of the ssb filter. A signal generated this way can be quite clicky -- I would consider a 3 KHz wide CW signal way too wide. - Yeah! On the CW bands at least. Some of the HSCW might need that! You bring up a good point I missed in my reply earlier. If using keyed audio to produce CW, then the waveform produced by the keying source is very important to avoid clicks. Kevin Stover said ...audio injected CW, really afsk,... Isn't afsk really audio frequency-shift keying as commonly used for RTTY on VHF? The signal produced by a well-adjusted SSB rig with a pure keyed tone injected will be pure CW, undetectable from any other CW signal. The things to be concerned about to achieve that, other than a decent keying waveform on the audio signal, are adequate carrier and opposite sideband suppression. On the CW bands, any carrier or other sideband leak would be simply a spurious emission and would have to meet all the FCC requirements for the level of such emissions. Ron AC7AC ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] K2 CW speed
Kevin Stover said ...audio injected CW, really afsk,... Isn't afsk really audio frequency-shift keying as commonly used for RTTY on VHF? The signal produced by a well-adjusted SSB rig with a pure keyed tone injected will be pure CW, undetectable from any other CW signal. The things to be concerned about to achieve that, other than a decent keying waveform on the audio signal, are adequate carrier and opposite sideband suppression. On the CW bands, any carrier or other sideband leak would be simply a spurious emission and would have to meet all the FCC requirements for the level of such emissions. Ron AC7AC AFSK is audio-frequency-shift keying and that's what the majority of Hams using the sound card for RTTY on HF are using. Check me if I'm wrong but if the sound card produces a pure sine wave audio signal of say 600Hz how would you distinguish that from a hard keyed CW signal unless it's got harmonics spread out over the 2.5Khz audio bandpass? How do the rise and fall times of the SSB and CW waveforms compare? Isn't SSB, even with VOX delay turned all the way down, a lot slower than CW? If the SSB rise and fall times are slower than CW how do you get clicks? I would agree that nobody in their right mind would cut loose with 800wpm HSCW on the HF bands becasue of the bandwidth used. I can't remember the old formula for figuring the bandwidth for CW signals of any arbitary speed. -- R. Kevin Stover ACØH Reclaim Your Inbox! http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
RE: [Elecraft] K2 CW speed
Kevin, AC0H, wrote: How do the rise and fall times of the SSB and CW waveforms compare? Isn't SSB, even with VOX delay turned all the way down, a lot slower than CW? If the SSB rise and fall times are slower than CW how do you get clicks? I would agree that nobody in their right mind would cut loose with 800wpm HSCW on the HF bands becasue of the bandwidth used. I can't remember the old formula for figuring the bandwidth for CW signals of any arbitary speed. With proper waveform shaping, the CW bandwidth in Hz that is required is approximately 4 times the speed in WPM. So a 20 wpm signal needs about 80 Hz to pass the on/off transitions without stretching them out and impairing the readability. SSB allows 2.5 kHz or more bandwidth which would support about 800 wpm. That is, of course, way too much for the CW bands. As others have pointed out, that takes being careful about the nature of the driving signal, possible noise introduced by the oscillator-rig connection, and a clean audio waveform, as well as proper keying waveform. A number of SSB rigs used that technique to produce CW in years past. Some early SSB transceivers had no ready means to key the RF source, so they provided a keyable sidetone oscillator that also fed the TX chain. As a brass pounder 99% of the time, I didn't follow the transition from audio-injection to keyed RF sources in the newer transceivers, but I suspect it had to do with the issues of keeping the signal clean with adequate sideband and carrier suppression. Current rules require such spurious emissions to be at least 40 dB below the peak carrier for transmitter 5 watts (with a 50 mW limit no matter the power) or at least 30 dB down for a QRP transmitter (up to 5 watts). Elecraft spec's the carrier suppression at -40 dB (typical) for a K2 with the SSB adapter. I suspect that's very conservative, and allows for some sloppiness in setting the carrier null. Still, I'd check the actual level from my K2 if I tried that scheme running QRO. The opposite sideband rejection should be no concern considering the K2 OPT1 filter characteristics. I would not expect the VOX to be at all useful in such CW. Actually, a lot of the HSCW is done like we used to do ALL CW just a few years ago: no QSK! For scatter work, one doesn't know what one received for a period of time anyway. It has to be played back slowly while the op tries to hear the fragments of CW in all the noise. It's about as far from QSK as one can get. Ron AC7AC ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
