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!
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@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
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@umn.edu To: "Kevin M" n4ufo@yahoo.com Cc: amsat-bb@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@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@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
participants (3)
-
Kevin M -
Rich/wa4bue -
tosca005＠umn.edu