configuration setup wizard settings

[km4boq-/[e-mail] [linuxham]]

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 [e-mail] [linuxham]]

Straight acoustical coupling works.
On Jul 7, 2014 10:31 PM, "km4boq-/***@public.gmane.org [linuxham]" <
linuxham-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

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

[Original Woodchuck [e-mail] [linuxham]]

Question below:

On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 08:43:01AM -0400, Frank Ney n4zhg1-***@public.gmane.org [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




------------------------------------
Posted by: Original Woodchuck <marmota-2p+qKb8Fl0QN+***@public.gmane.org>
------------------------------------

[Arnie [e-mail] [linuxham]]

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-2p+qKb8Fl0QN+***@public.gmane.org
[linuxham] <linuxham-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

>
>
> Question below:
>
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 08:43:01AM -0400, Frank Ney n4zhg1-***@public.gmane.org
> [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 [e-mail] [linuxham]]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:56:01AM -0400, Arnie w8du-***@public.gmane.org [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


------------------------------------
Posted by: Original Woodchuck <marmota-2p+qKb8Fl0QN+***@public.gmane.org>
------------------------------------

[Arnie [e-mail] [linuxham]]

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-2p+qKb8Fl0QN+***@public.gmane.org
[linuxham] <linuxham-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:56:01AM -0400, Arnie w8du-***@public.gmane.org [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' lists-2PxNX0V3za/[e-mail] [linuxham]]

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-***@public.gmane.org [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-2p+qKb8Fl0QN+***@public.gmane.org
> [linuxham] <linuxham-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:56:01AM -0400, Arnie w8du-***@public.gmane.org
> [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
>




------------------------------------
Posted by: "Mike Miller" <lists-2PxNX0V3za/QT0dZR+***@public.gmane.org>
------------------------------------

[Original Woodchuck [e-mail] [linuxham]]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 12:47:50PM -0400, Arnie w8du-***@public.gmane.org [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


------------------------------------
Posted by: Original Woodchuck <marmota-2p+qKb8Fl0QN+***@public.gmane.org>
------------------------------------

[Arnie [e-mail] [linuxham]]

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-2p+qKb8Fl0QN+***@public.gmane.org
[linuxham] <linuxham-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 12:47:50PM -0400, Arnie w8du-***@public.gmane.org [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

[Original Woodchuck [e-mail] [linuxham]]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 02:50:17PM -0400, Arnie w8du-***@public.gmane.org [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.


------------------------------------
Posted by: Original Woodchuck <marmota-2p+qKb8Fl0QN+***@public.gmane.org>
------------------------------------

[Michael Coslo [e-mail] [linuxham]]

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-2p+qKb8Fl0QN+***@public.gmane.org [linuxham] <linuxham-***@public.gmane.org> 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 [e-mail] [linuxham]]

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-***@public.gmane.org [linuxham] <
linuxham-***@public.gmane.org> 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-2p+qKb8Fl0QN+***@public.gmane.org
> [linuxham] <linuxham-***@public.gmane.org> 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
>
>
>
>


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

[Charles Brabham [e-mail] [linuxham]]

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-***@public.gmane.org [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-***@public.gmane.org
> <mailto:mjcn3li-***@public.gmane.org> [linuxham] <linuxham-***@public.gmane.org
> <mailto:linuxham-***@public.gmane.org>> 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-2p+qKb8Fl0QN+***@public.gmane.org <mailto:marmota-2p+qKb8Fl0QN+***@public.gmane.org> [linuxham]
> <linuxham-***@public.gmane.org <mailto:linuxham-***@public.gmane.org>> 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
>
>
> linuxham-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org
> <mailto:linuxham-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.danasoft.com/sig/Thereyouareduh.jpg
>

[BT Yahoo!©2013 [e-mail] [linuxham]]

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-***@public.gmane.org [linuxham]" <***@yahoogroups.com>
To: linuxham-***@public.gmane.org
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-***@public.gmane.org [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-***@public.gmane.org [linuxham] <linuxham-***@public.gmane.org> 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-2p+qKb8Fl0QN+***@public.gmane.org [linuxham] <linuxham-***@public.gmane.org> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
>http://www.danasoft.com/sig/Thereyouareduh.jpg

[Original Woodchuck [e-mail] [linuxham]]

On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 08:27:46AM +0100, BT Yahoo!©2013 robert.farey-***@public.gmane.org [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.


------------------------------------
Posted by: Original Woodchuck <marmota-2p+qKb8Fl0QN+***@public.gmane.org>
------------------------------------

[Ken [e-mail] [linuxham]]

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-2p+qKb8Fl0QN+***@public.gmane.org [linuxham] wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:56:01AM -0400, Arnie w8du-***@public.gmane.org [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.



------------------------------------
Posted by: Ken <wa8jxm-***@public.gmane.org>
------------------------------------

[Original Woodchuck [e-mail] [linuxham]]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 10:05:48PM -0400, Ken wa8jxm-***@public.gmane.org [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


------------------------------------
Posted by: Original Woodchuck <marmota-2p+qKb8Fl0QN+***@public.gmane.org>
------------------------------------

[Michael Coslo [e-mail] [linuxham]]

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-/***@public.gmane.org [linuxham] <
linuxham-***@public.gmane.org> 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 -

[mitchwinkle-/[e-mail] [linuxham]]

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 [e-mail] [linuxham]]

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-/***@public.gmane.org [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
>
>



------------------------------------
Posted by: Marty Hartwell <mhartwe-***@public.gmane.org>
------------------------------------

[Michael Coslo [e-mail] [linuxham]]

On Jul 8, 2014, at 9:02 PM, mitchwinkle-/***@public.gmane.org [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

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

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