[CW] CORRECTION - Speed vs Bandwidth

Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:50:09 -0500

I can't find that.  I know these figures aren't for square waves.

Probably they are adjusted for softness or hardness depending on the
circuit.

You need a harder waveform for a bad circuit.  The harder waveform makes
more harmonics and a wider signal.

That would put the waveshape at 5 ms for soft (non-fading circuits) and 3 ms
for hard (fading) - which I think is about right range, but 5 ms is fine for

I have seen 20 ms waveshape which of course made the circuit ring like a
bell - beautiful copy for local work though - fun to copy when signals are
right and code speed is below about 25 wpm.

On the other hand if the message has to get there, and conditions are
terrible, I would adjust the waveshape to 3 ms or so - there would be much
more clicking - but that helps reception.  Something I'd recommend to
QRPers!

Do you have any sources on this?  I can't find the definative answer!

73

David Ring
N1EA

----- Original Message -----
From: "George, W5YR" <[email protected]>
To: "David J. Ring, Jr." <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: [CW] CORRECTION - Speed vs Bandwidth

> David, what is the assumed waveshape?
>
> 73, George W5YR
> Fairview, TX
> [email protected]
> http://www.w5yr.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David J. Ring, Jr." <[email protected]>
> To: "David J. Ring, Jr." <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:02 PM
> Subject: [CW] CORRECTION - Speed vs Bandwidth
>
>
> > I just started to reread through I wrote, and I found at least one
error.
> >
> > 60 wpm produces 25 dots and 25 inter-element spaces (50 total code
> elements)
> > in sixty seconds.  Each dot or each inter-element space occupies 1/50 of
a
> > second or 20 ms.
> >
> > That should read:
> >
> > 60 wpm produces 25 dots and 25 inter-element spaces (50 total code
> elements)
> > PER second.  Each dot or each inter-element space occupies 1/50 of a
> > second or 20 ms.
> >
> > Of course at 60 wpm, we would produce 25*60=1,500 dots in a second but I
> > think you'll agree it is much easier to count the dots in one second
(25)
> > than to count the dots in one minute (1,500).
> >
> > 73
> >
> > David who is going back to dot counting.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CW mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>
>