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 constant envelope, and the CW id could be sent way down at FDial+100Hz. If the OOK nature of CW is the issue, you could always treat it as FSK using 1 Hz and 100Hz. The 1Hz component would get chopped out in the radio, leaving the ID and FT8 signal.
-- David Tiller Sr. Architect/Lead Consultant | CapTech (804) 304-0638 | dtil...@captechconsulting.com On Jul 5, 2017, at 5:29 PM, Richard Lamont <rich...@lamont.me.uk> wrote: > 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. > > 73, > Richard G4DYA > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
