Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8: CW ID not a good idea

Hi All re "Morse code speeds are conventionally defined in a very precise way. See, for example, http://www.kent-engineers.com/codespeed.htm . The width of the main spectral lobe of a CW signal in Hz is roughly equal to the speed in WPM. Fairly strong secondary lobes occur at multiples of

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8: CW ID not a good idea

Hi All One option might be to truncate the data for the period chosen to include cw id to allow time for the morse. Such periods would still decode, albeit with a little less sensitivity. The option to do so could be at operator's discretion. 73 Charlie

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8: CW ID not a good idea

On 05/07/2017 23:49, Joe Taylor wrote: Hi all, If you knew you had to send an ID with a packet, could you not reduce the amplitude of the whole data packet by a db or so and re-allocate that power to the CW ID? It certainly doesn't have to be loud, much like repeaters do id-under-voice. That

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8: CW ID not a good idea

Joe and Richard, I see where the confusion is coming from. I meant to say that one could send the CW id across a whole 15 sec data 'over', NOT alongside each data packet burst. Sorry about the confusion. The word "PARIS" is considered a standard CW 'word', and consists of 52 dit times, if my

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8: CW ID not a good idea

It won't be required (cw ID) once the software is released to the public. At least in USA as far as FCC is concerned, no? I never is the cw ID On 7/5/2017 6:22 PM, Richard Bown wrote: Hi I'm a bit confused with pandanticity of the CW ident. the classification of the speed of sending morse

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8: CW ID not a good idea

On 05/07/17 22:46, David Tiller wrote: > If you knew you had to send an ID with a packet, could you not reduce the > amplitude of the whole data packet by a db or so and re-allocate that power > to the CW ID? It certainly doesn't have to be loud, much like repeaters do > id-under-voice. That

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8: CW ID not a good idea

Hi all, If you knew you had to send an ID with a packet, could you not reduce the amplitude of the whole data packet by a db or so and re-allocate that power to the CW ID? It certainly doesn't have to be loud, much like repeaters do id-under-voice. That way the FT8 signal taken by itself

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8: CW ID not a good idea

Hi I'm a bit confused with pandanticity of the CW ident. the classification of the speed of sending morse is weird anyway. definition of a word definition of a character Why not just take the longest word in the dictionary , multiply that by 20, and count up all the letters, I guess

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8: CW ID not a good idea

If you knew you had to send an ID with a packet, could you not reduce the amplitude of the whole data packet by a db or so and re-allocate that power to the CW ID? It certainly doesn't have to be loud, much like repeaters do id-under-voice. That way the FT8 signal taken by itself would still be

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8: CW ID not a good idea

Hi David, I believe that would generate some nasty side effects. 73 Bill G4WJS. On 05/07/2017 22:10, David Tiller wrote: Any chance of having the CW id run concurrently with a data packet, perhaps at fDial + 100 Hz or so? It'd meet the id requirement without interfering with QSOs. On Jul

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8: CW ID not a good idea

On 05/07/17 22:10, David Tiller wrote: > Any chance of having the CW id run concurrently with a data packet, perhaps > at fDial + 100 Hz or so? It'd meet the id requirement without interfering > with QSOs. Doing it concurrently wouldn't be compatible with FT8 being a 'constant envelope' mode.

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8: CW ID not a good idea

Any chance of having the CW id run concurrently with a data packet, perhaps at fDial + 100 Hz or so? It'd meet the id requirement without interfering with QSOs. > On Jul 5, 2017, at 14:42, Gary McDuffie wrote: > > >> On Jul 4, 2017, at 12:56 PM, Steve Huston

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8: CW ID not a good idea

> On Jul 4, 2017, at 12:56 PM, Steve Huston wrote: > > I did notice that having "CW ID after 73" turned on didn't work well > in that mode - I would get W2 out before it would change to the next > part of the sequence and stop. I unchecked it for now. Since it takes 13.4

[wsjt-devel] FT8: CW ID not a good idea

Just built and tested r7782, and man FT8 is fast paced. I like it! I did notice that having "CW ID after 73" turned on didn't work well in that mode - I would get W2 out before it would change to the next part of the sequence and stop. I unchecked it for now. -- Steve Huston - W2SRH - Unix