In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

There was an ARRL HQ station before W1AW. What was its callsign?

----- W1MK

You are correct, sir! And before that, it was 1MK

There's a second callsign for the ARRL lab. What is/was it?

----- W1INF

"It's Never Finished" - again correct.

More trivia: There is an IARU HQ call sign. What is it?

That's easy: NU1AW

While it may
have a certain familiarity about it, especially the suffix, what is the
significance of the prefix?

The original system for licensed amateur calls was a number and two or three
letters. Maxim held 1AW, for example. This worked fine until amateur began
working internationally and there was no way to tell what country a ham was
in. When the first shortwave QSO was made by in November of 1925, the stations
involved were 1QP, 1MO and 8AB - the last one being in France.

So amateurs invented the idea of unofficial prefixes. "NU" meant "North
america, United states". So while Maxim's call was shown on the license as 1AW,
on the air he would use NU1AW to indicate where he was. Other countries had
different prefixes, all according to the unoffficial system

To emphasize that the prefixes were unofficial, they were usually written lower
case: nu1AW

The situation was finally sorted out at one of the radio conferences of the
'20s (1927, I think) and the USA decided that American ham calls would all
start with W (in CONUS) and K (outside CONUS).

73 de Jim, N2EY

"KØHB" wrote in message
news

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

4U1ITU is the station of the International Amateur Radio Club at ITU
HQ in Geneva ... I've operated the station. The significance of the
prefix is that 4U's are UN callsigns.

I'm not speaking of the ITU but the IARU (not the same thing at all). The
IARU HQ station is not associated with the UN (nor the ITU) so does not
have
a "4U" prefix.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Sorry Hans. I misread your query.

73,
Carl - wk3c

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

N2EY wrote:

Trivia Quiz:

There was an ARRL HQ station before W1AW. What was its callsign?

W1MK, I think located near Brainard Field, Hartford.

You are correct, sir! Heavily damaged in the flood of '36, as I recall.

There's a second callsign for the ARRL lab. What is/was it?

Memory fails...

W1INF

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


The question kind of states it. I suppose that the BW might be wider as
the speed increases.

Mike,

The bandwidth of a Morse signal is determined by the rise and fall times

of the

leading and trailing edges of each dit or dah, and the shape of the rise

and

fall.


The reason I ask is that on 3580 tonight, we're all sitting there fat,
dumb, and happy, when W1AW starts it's CW broadcast.

Who is "we", Mike?


And it's some 700
kHz wide!!!

How did you determine the bandwidth?


And now I'd swear it's almost 3kHz wide. That's like SSB!!!

Yep. Such a bandwidth would require extremely "hard" keying, though. Or a
modulated carrier.

Needless to say, their strong signal was pretty tough on all us 5 and
ten watters. you could get most of a message through, but it took a lt
of the fun out of it.

Was the AGC on?

73 de Jim, N2EY



Part of the equation here is the receiver, as Jim N2EY was bringing up. A
lot of folks don't understand that actual bandwidth and apparant bandwith as
determined by a receiver are not the same in most cases.

Also I really don't see the problem, why did you just sit there? Were you
all rock bound or what?

Move frequency, were not channelized, yet.

That isn't my point, Dan. That wasn't a good signal W1AW was putting
out, and it was making a mess out of the local neighborhood. Usually PSK
and OOK Morse get along just fine.

My point is that by coming out with a ratty signal, W1AW was doing what
so many hams were complaining about K1MAN does. Fire it up, and too bad
for the rest of you.

That and wondering what a CW signal Bandwidth was in the first place.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

That isn't my point, Dan. That wasn't a good signal W1AW was putting
out, and it was making a mess out of the local neighborhood. Usually PSK
and OOK Morse get along just fine.

My point is that by coming out with a ratty signal, W1AW was doing what
so many hams were complaining about K1MAN does. Fire it up, and too bad
for the rest of you.

That and wondering what a CW signal Bandwidth was in the first place.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike, Mike, my boy, you just don't understand.

The ARRL is kind of like that "Home on the Range" song... where never
is heard a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day.

Don't be sayin nuttin bad bout the ARRL, nor their flagship broadcast
station W1AW. You'll get the wrath of the Old Man himself when you
get up to the Pearly Gates.

Someone wrote;
That and wondering what a CW signal Bandwidth was in the first place.
------------------------

From the ARRL License Manual 1976:

CW Bandwidth = wpm X 4
"With proper shaping, the necessary keying bandwidth is equal to 4
times the speed in words per minute for International Morse Code;
e.g. at 25 words per minute, the bandwidth is approximately 100 cycles.
e.g., 40 WPM = approximately 160 Hz"

--
73 From The Wilderness Keyboard

"Keyboard In The Wilderness" wrote in message news:JhiKb.46924$m83.10369@fed1read01...
Someone wrote;
That and wondering what a CW signal Bandwidth was in the first place.
------------------------

From the ARRL License Manual 1976:

CW Bandwidth = wpm X 4
"With proper shaping, the necessary keying bandwidth is equal to 4
times the speed in words per minute for International Morse Code;
e.g. at 25 words per minute, the bandwidth is approximately 100 cycles.
e.g., 40 WPM = approximately 160 Hz"

Does the ARRL License Manual of 1976 address Farnsworth code and bandwidth?

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

That isn't my point, Dan. That wasn't a good signal W1AW was putting
out, and it was making a mess out of the local neighborhood. Usually PSK
and OOK Morse get along just fine.

My point is that by coming out with a ratty signal, W1AW was doing what

so many hams were complaining about K1MAN does. Fire it up, and too bad
for the rest of you.

That and wondering what a CW signal Bandwidth was in the first place.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike, Mike, my boy, you just don't understand.

The ARRL is kind of like that "Home on the Range" song... where never
is heard a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day.

Don't be sayin nuttin bad bout the ARRL, nor their flagship broadcast
station W1AW. You'll get the wrath of the Old Man himself when you
get up to the Pearly Gates.

If any individual hears "bad signals" on W1AW frequency, it is
obviously a fault of the individual's receiver/antenna/ears/imagination.
W1AW and ARRL can do no wrong.

LHA

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

That wasn't a good signal W1AW was putting
out, and it was making a mess out of the local neighborhood.

Are you sure the W1AW signal was dirty? An overloaded receiver or soundcard
will do exaclty what you describe.

That doesn't mean it's impossible that W1AW had a problem, just that all things
need to be checked out. Have you listened to W1AW since then?

Usually PSK and OOK Morse get along just fine.

Depends on who's doing what. 3579 used to be a popular "glowbug" frequency for
Morse folks using simple rigs and a colorburst crystal. Then the freq was taken
over by PSK-31 due to the popularity of the "Warbler".

My point is that by coming out with a ratty signal, W1AW was doing
what so many hams were complaining about K1MAN does. Fire it up, and too bad
for the rest of you.

W1AW transmits bulletins and code practice on a published schedule, and is on
every HF amateur band simultaneously. Been doing that for almost 70 years now.
However, the signal should be clean.

Didja email them? Even that "professional" Harris stuff can go wacko.

73 de Jim, N2EY

That and wondering what a CW signal Bandwidth was in the first place.

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Keyboard In The Wilderness" wrote in message
news:JhiKb.46924$m83.10369@fed1read01...
Someone wrote;
That and wondering what a CW signal Bandwidth was in the first
place.
------------------------

From the ARRL License Manual 1976:

CW Bandwidth = wpm X 4
"With proper shaping, the necessary keying bandwidth is equal to 4
times the speed in words per minute for International Morse Code;
e.g. at 25 words per minute, the bandwidth is approximately 100 cycles.
e.g., 40 WPM = approximately 160 Hz"

Does the ARRL License Manual of 1976 address Farnsworth code and
bandwidth?

The Farnsworth approach isn't even used for faster code speeds like 40wpm so
it is a moot point. However the calculation method would be to use the
character speed as the parameter in the calculation not the "effective word
speed" that is created by increasing the space between characters.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE