[CW] ARRL

[N2EY at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/6/05 8:04:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
bcarling at cfl.rr.com writes:


> On 6 Mar 2005 at 17:18, MORSENUT at aol.com wrote:
> 
> > One of the things that really has me steamed is ARRL's recent 
> > bandwidth proposal.

Me too, but not for the same reasons.
> > 
> > And another poster is dead right - if they have their way  regarding
> > their bandwidth proposal, there will be a "speed limit" imposed  since
> > a faster sending rate results in a wider bandwidth  signal.

Not exactly.

The bandwidth of a CW signal depends on the rise and fall times of the rig 
when keyed, and the shape of the keying characteristic. I don't know any rigs 
where the rise and fall times change when you change speed - instead, the rise 
and fall times are set for the highest speed likely to be used, and the 
bandwidth of the transmitted signal is the same regardless of speed.

Now of course a narrower filter can be used at the *receive* end if the speed 
is reduced, but the transmitted signal still takes up the same amount of 
spectrum.

The big questions are: What bandwidth limit is proposed, and how fast a 
Morse/CW signal can fit in that bandwidth? 
> > 
> > And this when the total number of Hams who use CW as opposed  to
> > non-CW digital modes is several times greater.
> 

That's a point to be hammered home again and again. 
> 
> > I am left with the feeling that ARRL wants CW left  behind and out of
> > the picture.
> 
> Tim - a speed limit on CW is one of the more stupid things I have 
> ever heard anyone propose for the amateur radio service.
> 

Nobody has proposed such a thing, that I can see.



> After 30 years of legislative hoop-la, rules changes etc.
> nothing will surprise me. I think some of these proposals are 
> only taken seriously becaise the other folks have no knowledge or 
> experience.
> 
> 

I think if enough of us oppose the bad parts of the bandwidth proposal, it 
will go nowhere.

73 de Jim, N2EY