Holiday in Tenerife

CW will travel further and better under poor conditions than Voice, always

karl

The reports were all exchanged successfully anyway Walt.

Jimmy M0HGY

CW and SSB signals always travel exactly the same distance.

1 Like

IMHO, CW is more efficient than SSB because the power is concentrated within a narrower bandwidth and also because its much simpler and easier for the operator at the RX end to filter and copy a single tone CW signal rather than a multitone human speaking one.
Even super weak CW signals in the middle of QRM can be filtered and made copiable with the help of the nice features our rigs use to have, but I never find weak SSB signals suitable to be filtered, extracted out from the QRM and made copiable as the CW ones.
73,

Guru

Have you tried higher bands? I have operated from EA8 many times and always found 10m to be open somewhere.

Oh yes Steve. 10 and 12 were useful last year here. Not so this week. We actually carried all bands 40m through 6m and VHF. However 17m to 10m were unusable due to condx, 6m closed and 40m/30m adversely affected by absorption (or so it seemed).

That kinda left 20m to do the biz for us. With no little determination and patience, we made it do the necessary.

1 Like

For a 2000 HZ bandwith of SSB and a 100 Hz bandwith CW signals the power density will be (@ 100 W)
CW=1 W/Hz
SSB=0,05 W/Hz

Beacuse gain is gain= 10log(1/00.5) = 13 dB

Roughly, it means 5w (CW) will as efficient as 100 W (SSB)ā€¦ :slight_smile:

73

There is little point in re-hashing the advantages of CW over SSB, we all know that from the days when we studied for our licenses! Use of CW or SSB is more a matter of preferences than a cold calculation of costs and benefits. Some people prefer to talk, itā€™s as simple as that.

Brian

Using CW is just another way to talk to other amateur radio fellowsā€¦But I got you point. :wink:

Pedro

You say that as though CW isnā€™t talking Brian. Surely just a different lamguage?

Are not bandwidths dictated by the receiver filters more the determining factor, i.e. 2,700Hz for SSB and say 300Hz for CW based on available filters. Rather than a 20:1 ratio, you end up with a 9:1 ratio, but it is still a significant difference.

Yesā€¦ and I shouldnā€™t be so polite waiting to call you while listening to you fade out of sight. Oh well, itā€™s a good job Iā€™m an Activator foremost, otherwise I could quite get frustrated with this chasing milarky! :wink:

73, Gerald G4OIG

About to go up El Teide EA8/TF-001. But only to about 3500m asl (summit is 3715m) and not with any radio equipment!

Gonna fully enjoy the mountain and disregard the SOTA on this occasion!

Hi Gerald

I agree that 2700/300 are much closer to daily use of our bands but even so, 9.5dB is a very noticeable difference when comparing readability of both signals.
Sharp digital filters - like the ones that sotabeams sell - could make a major difference in what you listen or not! :slight_smile:

Tom
Have a nice walk. Enjoy (even without a radio)!

73 de Pedro, CT1DBS/CU3HF

Hi everyone!

Sorry for the ā€œshortā€ delay (3 and a half months). But now you can see the activation reports and photos from our two EA8 Tenerife activations in September - Guaza EA8/TF-016 and Rojar EA8/TF-019!

Plus all The Cloud G/SP-015 activations done since then, wiht a few photos added here too.

Hereā€™s the linkā€¦

http://tomread.co.uk

1 Like