Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

configuration setup wizard settings

Expand Messages
  • km4boq
    has anyone been able to setup a Baofeng handheld uv-5r or predecessor Bf-F8+ on Fldigi and how did you do that?
    Message 1 of 21 , Jul 7 7:31 PM
    • 0 Attachment

      has anyone been able to setup a Baofeng handheld uv-5r or predecessor Bf-F8+ on Fldigi and how did you do that?

    • Frank Ney
      Straight acoustical coupling works. On Jul 7, 2014 10:31 PM, km4boq@yahoo.com [linuxham]
      Message 2 of 21 , Jul 8 5:43 AM
      • 0 Attachment

        Straight acoustical coupling works.

        On Jul 7, 2014 10:31 PM, "km4boq@... [linuxham]" <linuxham@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
         

        has anyone been able to setup a Baofeng handheld uv-5r or predecessor Bf-F8+ on Fldigi and how did you do that?

      • Michael Coslo
        Just used VOX, squelch level at 0 (no squelch)and homebrew transformer interface with appropriate cabling. Worked well. On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 10:31 PM,
        Message 3 of 21 , Jul 8 6:18 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Just used VOX, squelch level at 0 (no squelch)and homebrew transformer interface with appropriate cabling. Worked well.



          On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 10:31 PM, km4boq@... [linuxham] <linuxham@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
           

          has anyone been able to setup a Baofeng handheld uv-5r or predecessor Bf-F8+ on Fldigi and how did you do that?




          --
          -73 Mike N3LI -
        • Original Woodchuck
          Question below: ... Does this result in an FCC-recognized/authorized mode? A mode consistent with ARRL/other bandplans? I ve heard people using fldigi to
          Message 4 of 21 , Jul 8 8:48 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Question below:

            On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 08:43:01AM -0400, Frank Ney n4zhg1@... [linuxham] wrote:
            > Straight acoustical coupling works.

            Does this result in an FCC-recognized/authorized mode? A mode consistent
            with ARRL/other bandplans?

            I've heard people using fldigi to generate CW like sounds on FM repeaters,
            but this is NOT CW, or is it? Clearly, during a burst of this faux
            CW, the FM carrier is being transmitted between acoustic information.
            That ain't CW. I'd cite the official mode designations, but they're
            not handy.

            Suppose you have an AM transmitter, i.e. a double sideband plus continuous
            carrier system. Whistling Morse code into it isn't CW.

            Are any modes "legal" when applied to a wide-band FM modulated signal,
            other than voice? incidental station ID in Morse?

            Thanks,

            73, Dave AB3NR
          • Arnie
            What you are describing is called MCW, short for modulated continuous wave. MCW can be either AM, FM or PM, generally. If you are not transmitting a carrier,
            Message 5 of 21 , Jul 8 8:56 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              What you are describing is called MCW, short for modulated continuous wave. MCW can be either AM, FM or PM, generally.
              If you are not transmitting a carrier, then using a tone to generate CW is indistinguishable from regular CW on the receive end, provided that the tone is pure sine wave.
              73 de Arnie W8DU


              On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Original Woodchuck marmota@... [linuxham] <linuxham@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
               

              Question below:

              On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 08:43:01AM -0400, Frank Ney n4zhg1@... [linuxham] wrote:
              > Straight acoustical coupling works.

              Does this result in an FCC-recognized/authorized mode? A mode consistent
              with ARRL/other bandplans?

              I've heard people using fldigi to generate CW like sounds on FM repeaters,
              but this is NOT CW, or is it? Clearly, during a burst of this faux
              CW, the FM carrier is being transmitted between acoustic information.
              That ain't CW. I'd cite the official mode designations, but they're
              not handy.

              Suppose you have an AM transmitter, i.e. a double sideband plus continuous
              carrier system. Whistling Morse code into it isn't CW.

              Are any modes "legal" when applied to a wide-band FM modulated signal,
              other than voice? incidental station ID in Morse?

              Thanks,

              73, Dave AB3NR




              --
              http://www.danasoft.com/sig/Thereyouareduh.jpg
            • Original Woodchuck
              ... Right. ... How can it be indistinguishable? Suppose we have orthodox CW on 7 MHz, just to be definite. Then a dot consists of a burst of 7MHz
              Message 6 of 21 , Jul 8 9:31 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:56:01AM -0400, Arnie w8du@... [linuxham] wrote:
                > What you are describing is called MCW, short for modulated continuous wave.
                > MCW can be either AM, FM or PM, generally.

                Right.

                > If you are not transmitting a carrier, then using a tone to generate CW is
                > indistinguishable from regular CW on the receive end, provided that the
                > tone is pure sine wave.
                > 73 de Arnie W8DU

                How can it be indistinguishable? Suppose we have "orthodox" CW on
                7 MHz, just to be definite. Then a dot consists of a burst of 7MHz
                unmodulated carrier. A particular sort of receiver must be used to
                generate the tone output, typically injecting it from a VFO. The old
                super-regen receivers could also generate a tone. But the routine AM
                receiver, no.

                If instead, we frequency modulate a 7MHz carrier with a 400Hz sine
                wave, using an FM transmitter, the 7MHz carrier will change frequency
                according to the voltage of the sine wave (and other characteristics
                of the transmitter). The frequency of the carrier will vary at 400Hz,
                how much "depends". An FM receiver (of appropriate deviation) will
                emit a 400Hz tone. The bandwidth of the signal depends on the
                degree of modulation, i.e. the strength of the input 400Hz, not on
                the frequency of modulation. Thus a 5 wpm Morse code signal could
                occupy the full 7.5KHz bandwidth of wideband amateur FM.

                This signal might also be detectable on an AM or SSB receiver, but it
                doesn't sound like CW -- to the mind or ear, at least to me.

                If you mean indistinguishable to the ear, then yeah.

                Dave AB3NR
              • Arnie
                It s indistinguishable the same way that FSK and AFSK are indistinguishable, provided that, again, the tones used to generate AFSK are pure sine wave. On Tue,
                Message 7 of 21 , Jul 8 9:47 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  It's indistinguishable the same way that FSK and AFSK are indistinguishable, provided that, again, the tones used to generate AFSK are pure sine wave.


                  On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Original Woodchuck marmota@... [linuxham] <linuxham@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                   

                  On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:56:01AM -0400, Arnie w8du@... [linuxham] wrote:
                  > What you are describing is called MCW, short for modulated continuous wave.
                  > MCW can be either AM, FM or PM, generally.

                  Right.


                  > If you are not transmitting a carrier, then using a tone to generate CW is
                  > indistinguishable from regular CW on the receive end, provided that the
                  > tone is pure sine wave.
                  > 73 de Arnie W8DU

                  How can it be indistinguishable? Suppose we have "orthodox" CW on
                  7 MHz, just to be definite. Then a dot consists of a burst of 7MHz
                  unmodulated carrier. A particular sort of receiver must be used to
                  generate the tone output, typically injecting it from a VFO. The old
                  super-regen receivers could also generate a tone. But the routine AM
                  receiver, no.

                  If instead, we frequency modulate a 7MHz carrier with a 400Hz sine
                  wave, using an FM transmitter, the 7MHz carrier will change frequency
                  according to the voltage of the sine wave (and other characteristics
                  of the transmitter). The frequency of the carrier will vary at 400Hz,
                  how much "depends". An FM receiver (of appropriate deviation) will
                  emit a 400Hz tone. The bandwidth of the signal depends on the
                  degree of modulation, i.e. the strength of the input 400Hz, not on
                  the frequency of modulation. Thus a 5 wpm Morse code signal could
                  occupy the full 7.5KHz bandwidth of wideband amateur FM.

                  This signal might also be detectable on an AM or SSB receiver, but it
                  doesn't sound like CW -- to the mind or ear, at least to me.

                  If you mean indistinguishable to the ear, then yeah.

                  Dave AB3NR




                  --
                  http://www.danasoft.com/sig/Thereyouareduh.jpg
                • Mike Miller
                  Hi Arnie, What you are saying applies to SSB modulated by a single pure sine wave being indistinguishable from a CW signal. According to the ARRL, MCW is legal
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jul 8 10:03 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Arnie,

                    What you are saying applies to SSB modulated by a single pure
                    sine wave being indistinguishable from a CW signal.

                    According to the ARRL, MCW is legal on 6m and higher frequency
                    bands so FM modulated by digital mode audio is legal on VHF/UHF.
                    Being lazy I didn't dig up the official FCC regulation.

                    73
                    Mike kc9doa

                    On 8 Jul 2014 at 12:47, Arnie w8du@... [linuxham] wrote:

                    > It's indistinguishable the same way that FSK and AFSK are
                    > indistinguishable, provided that, again, the tones used to
                    > generate AFSK
                    > are pure sine wave.
                    >
                    >
                    > On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Original Woodchuck
                    > marmota@...
                    > [linuxham] <linuxham@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                    >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:56:01AM -0400, Arnie w8du@...
                    > [linuxham]
                    > > wrote:
                    > > > What you are describing is called MCW, short for modulated
                    > continuous
                    > > wave.
                    > > > MCW can be either AM, FM or PM, generally.
                    > >
                    > > Right.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > > If you are not transmitting a carrier, then using a tone to
                    > generate CW
                    > > is
                    > > > indistinguishable from regular CW on the receive end,
                    > provided that the
                    > > > tone is pure sine wave.
                    > > > 73 de Arnie W8DU
                    > >
                    > > How can it be indistinguishable? Suppose we have "orthodox"
                    > CW on
                    > > 7 MHz, just to be definite. Then a dot consists of a burst of
                    > 7MHz
                    > > unmodulated carrier. A particular sort of receiver must be
                    > used to
                    > > generate the tone output, typically injecting it from a VFO.
                    > The old
                    > > super-regen receivers could also generate a tone. But the
                    > routine AM
                    > > receiver, no.
                    > >
                    > > If instead, we frequency modulate a 7MHz carrier with a 400Hz
                    > sine
                    > > wave, using an FM transmitter, the 7MHz carrier will change
                    > frequency
                    > > according to the voltage of the sine wave (and other
                    > characteristics
                    > > of the transmitter). The frequency of the carrier will vary
                    > at 400Hz,
                    > > how much "depends". An FM receiver (of appropriate deviation)
                    > will
                    > > emit a 400Hz tone. The bandwidth of the signal depends on
                    > the
                    > > degree of modulation, i.e. the strength of the input 400Hz,
                    > not on
                    > > the frequency of modulation. Thus a 5 wpm Morse code signal
                    > could
                    > > occupy the full 7.5KHz bandwidth of wideband amateur FM.
                    > >
                    > > This signal might also be detectable on an AM or SSB
                    > receiver, but it
                    > > doesn't sound like CW -- to the mind or ear, at least to
                    > me.
                    > >
                    > > If you mean indistinguishable to the ear, then yeah.
                    > >
                    > > Dave AB3NR
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --
                    > http://www.danasoft.com/sig/Thereyouareduh.jpg
                    >
                  • Original Woodchuck
                    ... Indistinguishable -- what do you mean? We re talking about a Baofeng wide-band FM transmitter being driven through its little microphone by an acoustic
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jul 8 11:37 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 12:47:50PM -0400, Arnie w8du@... [linuxham] wrote:
                      > It's indistinguishable the same way that FSK and AFSK are
                      > indistinguishable, provided that, again, the tones used to generate AFSK
                      > are pure sine wave.

                      "Indistinguishable" -- what do you mean?

                      We're talking about a Baofeng wide-band FM transmitter being driven
                      through its little microphone by an acoustic signal from fldigi and a
                      computer's speaker.

                      I picked CW because it is most easily pictured mentally, and email
                      doesn't allow pictures.

                      Are you trying to say that someone *without knowledge* of how the signal
                      was generated cannot tell the difference between an FM transmission of
                      someone playing Morse code on a flute (which is what fldigi, in essence,
                      is doing), and a CW transmission with someone operating a key?

                      73, Dave AB3NR
                    • Arnie
                      Clearly, the examples you give are not even close to pure sine waves. On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Original Woodchuck marmota@embarqmail.com ... --
                      Message 10 of 21 , Jul 8 11:50 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Clearly, the examples you give are not even close to pure sine waves.


                        On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Original Woodchuck marmota@... [linuxham] <linuxham@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                         

                        On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 12:47:50PM -0400, Arnie w8du@... [linuxham] wrote:
                        > It's indistinguishable the same way that FSK and AFSK are
                        > indistinguishable, provided that, again, the tones used to generate AFSK
                        > are pure sine wave.

                        "Indistinguishable" -- what do you mean?

                        We're talking about a Baofeng wide-band FM transmitter being driven
                        through its little microphone by an acoustic signal from fldigi and a
                        computer's speaker.

                        I picked CW because it is most easily pictured mentally, and email
                        doesn't allow pictures.

                        Are you trying to say that someone *without knowledge* of how the signal
                        was generated cannot tell the difference between an FM transmission of
                        someone playing Morse code on a flute (which is what fldigi, in essence,
                        is doing), and a CW transmission with someone operating a key?

                        73, Dave AB3NR




                        --
                        http://www.danasoft.com/sig/Thereyouareduh.jpg
                      • Michael Coslo
                        What? DonÆt ever do that. IÆve had a few arguments with people who wanted to do that sort of thing in my classes. It makes for a demonstration of poor
                        Message 11 of 21 , Jul 8 12:34 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          What? Don’t ever do that.

                          I’ve had a few arguments with people who wanted to do that sort of thing in my classes. It makes for a demonstration of poor practice, and I’ll just bet the “served agency” people will just love to hear all that screeching.

                          Computer speaker audio output to a mic of questionable quality on a challenged transceiver. Yuck. You need a different paradigm, like properly matched cables from a good soundcard, fed into a competent radio with a good clean transmit signal, and in the case of FM, proper deviation.

                          -73 Mike N3LI -


                          On Jul 8, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Original Woodchuck marmota@... [linuxham] <linuxham@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                          >
                          > We're talking about a Baofeng wide-band FM transmitter being driven
                          > through its little microphone by an acoustic signal from fldigi and a
                          > computer's speaker.
                        • Arnie
                          Exactly. I think that perhaps some time spent with the handbook wherein different methods of signal generation are detailed would be time well spent to gain
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jul 8 1:33 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Exactly. I think that perhaps some time spent with the handbook wherein different methods of signal generation are detailed would be time well spent to gain basic understanding. It really sounds like someone does not understand the basics necessary to a meaningful discussion of how different types of signals may be created.
                            I am sure the ARRL and others have a number of sources of information for those who really want to understand this.
                            73 de Arnie W8DU


                            On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Michael Coslo mjcn3li@... [linuxham] <linuxham@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                            What? Don’t ever do that.

                            I’ve had a few arguments with people who wanted to do that sort of thing in my classes. It makes for a demonstration of poor practice, and I’ll just bet the “served agency” people will just love to hear all that screeching.

                            Computer speaker audio output to a mic of questionable quality on a challenged transceiver. Yuck. You need a different paradigm, like properly matched cables from a good soundcard, fed into a competent radio with a good clean transmit signal, and in the case of FM, proper deviation.

                            -73 Mike N3LI -


                            On Jul 8, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Original Woodchuck marmota@... [linuxham] <linuxham@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                            >
                            > We're talking about a Baofeng wide-band FM transmitter being driven
                            > through its little microphone by an acoustic signal from fldigi and a
                            > computer's speaker.



                            ------------------------------------

                            ------------------------------------


                            ------------------------------------

                            Yahoo Groups Links

                            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/linuxham/

                            <*> Your email settings:
                                Individual Email | Traditional

                            <*> To change settings online go to:
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/linuxham/join
                                (Yahoo! ID required)

                            <*> To change settings via email:
                                linuxham-digest@yahoogroups.com
                                linuxham-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                linuxham-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                            <*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
                                https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/




                            --
                            http://www.danasoft.com/sig/Thereyouareduh.jpg
                          • Charles Brabham
                            Or... We could behave like hams and act as Elmers for our fellow amateurs. - Leaving out the snarky put-downs and dispensing useful information instead.
                            Message 13 of 21 , Jul 8 3:08 PM
                            • 0 Attachment

                              Or...  We could behave like hams and act as Elmers for our fellow amateurs. - Leaving out the snarky put-downs and dispensing useful information instead.

                              Having a snot attitude is like having a tattoo on your forehead that says, "Jerk outfit". This runs off lots of good people. There's no excuse for it.

                              The real paradigm that we need to concentrate upon is calm, patient understanding that drives useful instruction that encourages new guys, making them feel good about wanting to know instead of making sport of their misunderstanding, singling them out for ridicule.

                              When I run across a snot, superior attitude my first reaction is, "I think I'll pass on joining the butthole club."

                              73 DE Charles, N5PVL


                              On 7/8/2014 3:33 PM, Arnie w8du@... [linuxham] wrote:
                               
                              Exactly. I think that perhaps some time spent with the handbook wherein different methods of signal generation are detailed would be time well spent to gain basic understanding. It really sounds like someone does not understand the basics necessary to a meaningful discussion of how different types of signals may be created.
                              I am sure the ARRL and others have a number of sources of information for those who really want to understand this.
                              73 de Arnie W8DU


                              On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Michael Coslo mjcn3li@... [linuxham] <linuxham@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                              What? Don’t ever do that.

                              I’ve had a few arguments with people who wanted to do that sort of thing in my classes. It makes for a demonstration of poor practice, and I’ll just bet the “served agency” people will just love to hear all that screeching.

                              Computer speaker audio output to a mic of questionable quality on a challenged transceiver. Yuck. You need a different paradigm, like properly matched cables from a good soundcard, fed into a competent radio with a good clean transmit signal, and in the case of FM, proper deviation.

                              -73 Mike N3LI -


                              On Jul 8, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Original Woodchuck marmota@... [linuxham] <linuxham@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                              >
                              > We're talking about a Baofeng wide-band FM transmitter being driven
                              > through its little microphone by an acoustic signal from fldigi and a
                              > computer's speaker.



                              ------------------------------------

                              ------------------------------------


                              ------------------------------------

                              Yahoo Groups Links

                              <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/linuxham/

                              <*> Your email settings:
                                  Individual Email | Traditional

                              <*> To change settings online go to:
                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/linuxham/join
                                  (Yahoo! ID required)

                              <*> To change settings via email:
                                  linuxham-digest@yahoogroups.com
                                  linuxham-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                              <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  linuxham-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                              <*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
                                  https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/




                              --
                              http://www.danasoft.com/sig/Thereyouareduh.jpg

                            • mitchwinkle
                              km4boq Perhaps we could ask, What are you trying to accomplish? before we trot out Part 97 and the jots and tittles. Can you offer some insight on what you
                              Message 14 of 21 , Jul 8 6:02 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                km4boq

                                Perhaps we could ask, "What are you trying to accomplish?" before we trot out Part 97 and the jots and tittles.  Can you offer some insight on what you are trying to do?

                                Someone already mentioned an audio coupling cable/isolation circuit with the proper radio cable.  I'm sure someone makes one on eBay or Buxcomm, or you could butcher a Baofeng CAT/programming cable to make one.  You just need the RX and TX audio lines, PTT and ground, all of which should be present on the speaker/mic jack of the handheld.  Google is your friend here.  I'm sure someone has done this already.

                                Have fun with it! 

                                73,

                                Mitch
                              • Marty Hartwell
                                Hi In one of these exchanges the term MCW was mentioned as a means of creating the CW signal to be transmitted. This term of MCW is not the MCW that is not
                                Message 15 of 21 , Jul 8 6:21 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi

                                  In one of these exchanges the term MCW was mentioned as a means of
                                  creating the CW signal to be transmitted. This
                                  term of MCW is not the MCW that is not allowed in the Ham bands. Not
                                  sure how to do it but a search of the archives
                                  messages will come of with the exchanges, that is a lot of searching
                                  manually so maybe there is a tool within Yahoo
                                  Groups.
                                  Not meaning to stir up anything again just pointing out that it is a
                                  point of contention and misunderstanding, and I
                                  really don't understand it either.

                                  Marty kd8bj
                                  On 7/8/2014 8:02 PM, mitchwinkle@... [linuxham] wrote:
                                  >
                                  > km4boq
                                  >
                                  > Perhaps we could ask, "What are you trying to accomplish?" before we
                                  > trot out Part 97 and the jots and tittles. Can you offer some insight
                                  > on what you are trying to do?
                                  >
                                  > Someone already mentioned an audio coupling cable/isolation circuit
                                  > with the proper radio cable. I'm sure someone makes one on eBay or
                                  > Buxcomm, or you could butcher a Baofeng CAT/programming cable to make
                                  > one. You just need the RX and TX audio lines, PTT and ground, all of
                                  > which should be present on the speaker/mic jack of the handheld.
                                  > Google is your friend here. I'm sure someone has done this already.
                                  >
                                  > Have fun with it!
                                  >
                                  > 73,
                                  >
                                  > Mitch
                                  >
                                  >
                                • Michael Coslo
                                  ... A mini stereo cable, and a mini stereo on one end, and micro stereo on the other is a very extremely bad bare minimum. It tends to bang the bejabbers out
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Jul 8 6:25 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Jul 8, 2014, at 9:02 PM, mitchwinkle@... [linuxham] <linuxham@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                                    > km4boq
                                    >
                                    > Perhaps we could ask, "What are you trying to accomplish?" before we trot out Part 97 and the jots and tittles. Can you offer some insight on what you are trying to do?
                                    >
                                    > Someone already mentioned an audio coupling cable/isolation circuit with the proper radio cable. I'm sure someone makes one on eBay or Buxcomm, or you could butcher a Baofeng CAT/programming cable to make one. You just need the RX and TX audio lines, PTT and ground, all of which should be present on the speaker/mic jack of the handheld. Google is your friend here. I'm sure someone has done this already.

                                    A mini stereo cable, and a mini stereo on one end, and micro stereo on the other is a very extremely bad bare minimum. It tends to bang the bejabbers out of the mic input though, so a 600:600 isolation transformer with a pad is next for the input to the mic, and the same without padding for the radio output to the computer.

                                    Isolation is really helpful. Some say they don’t need it, I’ve only found one setup that didn’t, so isolate, it will make everything work better.

                                    Some have tried optoisolators for the isolation. they don’t work as well for audio apps. FB for PTT switching.

                                    Another thing I preach that is heresy is to use VOX. I can’t tell you how many rigs I’ve troubleshot that “seem to be working but” keying with PTT and not VOX just introduces two potential problems to be fixed.

                                    I’ve built a lot of isolation interfaces. I try to talk people into building one of their own. Parts from Mouser are dirt cheap. My last order for 2 boxes cost something like 12 bucks. Add a box from Rat Shack, and a few cables and an inexpensive USB soundcard- I kinda like the Soundblaster dongle for around 30 bucks, and you have something better than the very popular one that everyone seems to use these days. And you built it yourself. People who want to help out in emergencies should knowhow their stuff is working.

                                    - 73 Mike N3LI
                                  • Ken
                                    IIRC, MCW is A2 (or F2). As for generating a CW signal by injecting an audio tone into a SSB transmitter, I believe that is how the Elecraft K3 operates CW
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Jul 8 7:05 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      IIRC, MCW is A2 (or F2).

                                      As for generating a "CW" signal by injecting an audio tone into a SSB transmitter, I believe that is how the Elecraft K3 operates CW and it has one of the best CW signals on the air. But they do generate a very pure and well shaped tone and the rig has little or no distortion.

                                      I would agree that holding a transceiver mic next to a speaker is A3 or F3 modulation (regular phone operation.)

                                      Ken WA8JXM

                                      On Jul 8, 2014, at 12:31 PM, Original Woodchuck marmota@... [linuxham] wrote:

                                      > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:56:01AM -0400, Arnie w8du@... [linuxham] wrote:
                                      >> What you are describing is called MCW, short for modulated continuous wave.
                                      >> MCW can be either AM, FM or PM, generally.
                                      >
                                      > Right.
                                      >
                                      >> If you are not transmitting a carrier, then using a tone to generate CW is
                                      >> indistinguishable from regular CW on the receive end, provided that the
                                      >> tone is pure sine wave.
                                      >> 73 de Arnie W8DU
                                      >
                                      > How can it be indistinguishable? Suppose we have "orthodox" CW on
                                      > 7 MHz, just to be definite. Then a dot consists of a burst of 7MHz
                                      > unmodulated carrier. A particular sort of receiver must be used to
                                      > generate the tone output, typically injecting it from a VFO. The old
                                      > super-regen receivers could also generate a tone. But the routine AM
                                      > receiver, no.
                                    • Original Woodchuck
                                      ... Ever hear a flute? You re just a troll, I conclude.
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Jul 8 7:15 PM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 02:50:17PM -0400, Arnie w8du@... [linuxham] wrote:
                                        > Clearly, the examples you give are not even close to pure sine waves.

                                        Ever hear a flute?

                                        You're just a troll, I conclude.
                                      • Original Woodchuck
                                        ... Quite so. ... Moreover, the transceiver in question is an FM transceiver. Some seem to forget that the original question was about an FM transceiver.
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Jul 8 7:44 PM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 10:05:48PM -0400, Ken wa8jxm@... [linuxham] wrote:
                                          > IIRC, MCW is A2 (or F2).
                                          >
                                          > As for generating a "CW" signal by injecting an audio tone into a SSB transmitter, I believe that is how the Elecraft K3 operates CW and it has one of the best CW signals on the air. But they do generate a very pure and well shaped tone and the rig has little or no distortion.

                                          Quite so.

                                          > I would agree that holding a transceiver mic next to a speaker is A3 or F3 modulation (regular phone operation.)

                                          Moreover, the transceiver in question is an FM transceiver. Some seem
                                          to forget that the original question was about an FM transceiver.

                                          Mic-next-to-speaker does generate a CW signal if done with an SSB
                                          transceiver.

                                          >
                                          > Ken WA8JXM

                                          Dave AB3NR
                                        • BT Yahoo!©2013
                                          HI guys             lets have some peace please, i have watched all your comments with some interest in the matter. we have these cheap little
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Jul 9 12:27 AM
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            HI guys
                                                        lets have some peace please, i have watched all your comments with some interest in the matter. we have these cheap little radios they are a marvel to behold. however how some expect to get the same quality out of something so cheap does make me wonder how you expect that, when we also have more expensive Amateur radios which themselves are never that good.
                                            some seem to forget you only get what you pay for in this life.
                                            so expecting a cheap radio to perform even as good as an Amateur radio is expecting an awful lot.
                                                                                                       best regards Robert G6LLP 



                                            From: "Charles Brabham n5pvl@... [linuxham]" <linuxham@yahoogroups.com>
                                            To: linuxham@yahoogroups.com
                                            Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2014, 23:08
                                            Subject: Re: [linuxham] configuration setup wizard settings

                                             

                                            Or...  We could behave like hams and act as Elmers for our fellow amateurs. - Leaving out the snarky put-downs and dispensing useful information instead.

                                            Having a snot attitude is like having a tattoo on your forehead that says, "Jerk outfit". This runs off lots of good people. There's no excuse for it.

                                            The real paradigm that we need to concentrate upon is calm, patient understanding that drives useful instruction that encourages new guys, making them feel good about wanting to know instead of making sport of their misunderstanding, singling them out for ridicule.

                                            When I run across a snot, superior attitude my first reaction is, "I think I'll pass on joining the butthole club."

                                            73 DE Charles, N5PVL


                                            On 7/8/2014 3:33 PM, Arnie w8du@... [linuxham] wrote:
                                             
                                            Exactly. I think that perhaps some time spent with the handbook wherein different methods of signal generation are detailed would be time well spent to gain basic understanding. It really sounds like someone does not understand the basics necessary to a meaningful discussion of how different types of signals may be created.
                                            I am sure the ARRL and others have a number of sources of information for those who really want to understand this.
                                            73 de Arnie W8DU


                                            On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Michael Coslo mjcn3li@... [linuxham] <linuxham@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                                            What? Don’t ever do that.

                                            I’ve had a few arguments with people who wanted to do that sort of thing in my classes. It makes for a demonstration of poor practice, and I’ll just bet the “served agency” people will just love to hear all that screeching.

                                            Computer speaker audio output to a mic of questionable quality on a challenged transceiver. Yuck. You need a different paradigm, like properly matched cables from a good soundcard, fed into a competent radio with a good clean transmit signal, and in the case of FM, proper deviation.

                                            -73 Mike N3LI -


                                            On Jul 8, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Original Woodchuck marmota@... [linuxham] <linuxham@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > We're talking about a Baofeng wide-band FM transmitter being driven
                                            > through its little microphone by an acoustic signal from fldigi and a
                                            > computer's speaker.



                                            ------------------------------------

                                            ------------------------------------


                                            ------------------------------------

                                            Yahoo Groups Links

                                            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/linuxham/

                                            <*> Your email settings:
                                                Individual Email | Traditional

                                            <*> To change settings online go to:
                                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/linuxham/join
                                                (Yahoo! ID required)

                                            <*> To change settings via email:
                                                linuxham-digest@yahoogroups.com
                                                linuxham-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                                            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                linuxham-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                            <*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
                                                https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/




                                            --
                                            http://www.danasoft.com/sig/Thereyouareduh.jpg



                                          • Original Woodchuck
                                            ... How about I just give up again? Then we could have that fabled Pax Hamana , in which consensus is obtained at the price of truth. OK, I yield. I only
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Jul 9 3:49 AM
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 08:27:46AM +0100, BT Yahoo!©2013 robert.farey@... [linuxham] wrote:
                                              > HI guys
                                              >             lets have some peace please, i have watched all your comments with some interest in the matter. we have these cheap little radios they are a marvel to behold. however how some expect to get the same quality out of something so cheap does make me wonder how you expect that, when we also have more expensive Amateur radios which themselves are never that good.
                                              > some seem to forget you only get what you pay for in this life.
                                              > so expecting a cheap radio to perform even as good as an Amateur radio is expecting an awful lot.
                                              >                                                            best regards Robert G6LLP 

                                              How about I just give up again? Then we could have that fabled "Pax
                                              Hamana", in which consensus is obtained at the price of truth.

                                              OK, I yield. I only have a 2x2 call sign, and that's not good enough
                                              to prevail in a Ham Fight. US 1x3 or even the lofty and expensive 1x2
                                              will best me. W8DU is a 1x2, so he is right and I am wrong, since I am
                                              but AB3NR. W8DU also has more expensive radios than I do, making me
                                              doubly wrong.

                                              So. I confess my error. I know (and have known all along) and now admit
                                              that FM radios produce wonderful CW signals if fed "pure sine waves"
                                              from a PeeCee or other high fidelity speaker. I admit further that
                                              FM radios with 20KHz bandwidth, engineered for mode 20K0F3E (speech,
                                              modulated frequency), can, will and do regularly produce emission type
                                              A1A if (a) the radio is expensive enough and (b) is fed "pure sine
                                              waves" from a peecee speaker under the control of certain softwares, by
                                              a tuning fork, by a cleverly switched local oscillator, by whistling or
                                              by playing a piccolo or pipe organ. This, I freely confess, "stands to
                                              reason" and is "just plain common sense", "has been known for decades",
                                              and is taught in all ARRL publications, which I have never read, or read
                                              only to formulate divisive, trollish, impertinent arguments.

                                              Moreover, I confess that I had advance knowledge that all this was true,
                                              and from malice and the love of evil and discord maintained otherwise
                                              just to pick a fight and cause trouble, and hoped to cause the ruin
                                              of Amateur Radio, being the paid agent of both the WIFI and CB radio
                                              cabals. I apologize for attempting to mislead, misinform and cause
                                              harm to the helpful, friendly righteous hams, sowing discord among them,
                                              by asking smart-assed questions and by other means, and I confess that
                                              I have been the familiar consort of the Devil since 1956, who appears
                                              to me in the form of a large black marmot with burning red, beady eyes.

                                              So get on with the burning, it's dawn already. Smiley: :-)

                                              73,

                                              Dave AB3NR
                                              --
                                              Eppur si muove.
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.