Hi all,
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.
Such a scheme would NOT produce a constant envelope signal. Sending the
CW ID at a frequency offset by 100 Hz, or using FSK for the CW, would
make the signal much wider than an FT8 signal.
the classification of the speed of sending morse is weird anyway.
definition of a word ???? definition of a character ????
Morse code speeds are conventionally defined in a very precise way.
See, for example, http://www.kent-engineers.com/codespeed.htm .
The width of the main spectral lobe of a CW signal in Hz is roughly
equal to the speed in WPM. Fairly strong secondary lobes occur at
multiples of this number. Sending the CW ID at (say) 100 WPM, in order
to squeze it into a 15 s Tx interval, would make the CW ID much wider
than an FT8 signal.
Most likely we will implement CW ID as a separate, dedicated
transmission when the T/R sequence length is less than 30 s.
NB: Since June 15, 1983 FCC does NOT require US amateurs to use a CWID
with data modes.
-- 73, Joe, K1JT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
