Foundations of Amateur Radio

Latest Episodes:

How much attenuation is enough? Sep 03, 2023

Show notes

Foundations of Amateur Radio

Recently I had the opportunity to use a piece of professional equipment to measure the so-called unwanted or spurious emissions that a transceiver might produce. In describing this I finished off with the idea that you could use a $20 RTL-SDR dongle to do these measurements in your own shack. I did point out that you should use enough attenuation to prevent the white smoke from escaping from your dongle, but it left a question, how much attenuation is enough?

An RTL-SDR dongle is a USB powered device originally designed to act as a Digital TV and FM radio receiver. It's normally fitted with an antenna plugged into a socket on the side. I'll refer to it more generically as a receiver because much of what we're about to explore is applicable for other devices too.

Using your transceiver, or transmitter, as a signal source isn't the same as tuning to a broadcast station, unless you move it some distance away, as-in meters or even kilometres away, depending on how much power you're using at the time. Ideally we want to connect the transmitter output directly to the receiver input so, at least theoretically, the RF coming from the transmitter stays within the measuring set-up between the two devices.

Assuming you have a way to physically connect your transmitter to your receiver we need to work out what power levels are supported by your receiver.

For an RTL-SDR dongle, this is tricky to discover. I came across several documents that stated that the maximum power level was 10 dBm or 0.01 Watt, but that seemed a little high, since an S9 signal is -73 dBm, so I kept digging and discovered a thoughtful report published in August 2013 by Walter, HB9AJG. It's called "Some Measurements on DVB-T Dongles with E4000 and R820T Tuners".

There's plenty to learn from that report, but for our purposes today, we're interested in essentially two things, the weakest and strongest signals that the receiver can accommodate. We're obviously interested in the maximum signal, because out of the box our transmitter is likely to be much too strong for the receiver. We're going to need to reduce the power by a known amount using one or more connected RF attenuators.

At the other end of the scale, the minimum signal is important because if we add too much attenuation, we might end up below the minimum detectable signal level of the receiver.

Over the entire frequency range of the receivers tested in the report the minimum varies by about 14 dB, so let's pick the highest minimum from the report to get started. That's -127 dBm. What that means is that any signal that's stronger than -127 dBm is probably going to be detectable by the receiver and for some receivers on some frequencies, you might be able to go as low as -141 dBm.

At the other end of the scale the report shows that the receiver range is about 60 dB, which means that the strongest signal that we can use is -67 dBm before various types of distortion start occurring. For comparison, that's four times the strength of an S9 signal.

So, if we have a 10 Watt transmitter, or 40 dBm, we need to bring that signal down to a maximum of -67 dBm. In other words we need at least 107 dB of attenuation and if we have a safety margin of two, we'll need 110 dB of attenuation, remember, double power means adding 3 dB.

So, find 110 dB of attenuation. As it happens, if I connect most of my attenuators together, I could achieve that level of attenuation, but there's one further issue that we'll need to handle and that's power.

As you might recall, an attenuator has several attributes, the most obvious one is how much attenuation it brings to the party. It's specified in dB. My collection of attenuators range from 1 dB to 30 dB. Another attribute is the connector it comes with, I have both N-type and SMA connectors in my collection, so I'll need some adaptors to connect them together. One less obvious and at the cheap end of the scale, often undocumented, aspect of an attenuator is its ability to handle power. Essentially we're turning an RF signal into heat, so an attenuator needs to be able to dissipate that heat to handle what your transmitter is throwing at it.

I said that from a safety perspective I'd like to be able to handle 20 Watts of power. Fortunately we don't need all our attenuators to be able to handle 20 Watts, just the first one directly connected to the transmitter. If we were to use a 20 Watt, 30 dB attenuator, the signal through the attenuator is reduced to 0.02 Watts and the next attenuator in line only needs to be able to handle that power level and so-on.

To get started, find about 110 dB of attenuation, make sure it can handle 20 Watts and you can start playing.

Before you start keying up your transmitter, how might you handle a range of different transmitters and power levels and can you remove an attenuator when you test on a different frequency?

On that last point, let me say "No", you cannot remove the attenuator when you're measuring a different frequency.

I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Starting to measure spurious emissions ... Aug 27, 2023

Show notes

Foundations of Amateur Radio

At a recent local HAMfest we set-up a table to measure second and third harmonic emissions from any handheld radio that came our way. The process was fun and we learnt lots and in due course we plan to publish a report on our findings.

When we received a handheld, we would disconnect the antenna, and replace it with a short length of coax and connect it to a spectrum analyser. We would then trigger the Push To Talk, or PTT button and measure several things. We'd record the actual frequency and how many Watts that the transmitter was producing and then record the power level in dBm for the base frequency, double that frequency and triple that frequency. In other words, we'd record the base, second and third harmonics.

This resulted in a list of numbers. Frequency and power in Watts are obvious, but the three dBm numbers caused confusion for many visitors. The most perplexing appeared to be that we were producing negative dBm numbers, and truth be told, some positive ones as well, we'll get to those in our report.

How can you have negative power you ask?

As I've discussed before. A negative dBm number isn't a negative value of power, it's a fraction, so, -30 dBm represents 0.000001 Watts and you'd have to admit that -30 dBm rolls off the tongue just a little easier.

What we measured and logged was the overall transmitter output and at specific frequencies. As I've discussed previously, if you transmit using any transceiver, you'll produce power at the intended frequency, but there will also be unintended or unwanted transmissions, known as spurious emissions.

The International Telecommunications Union, or ITU, has standards for such emissions. In Australia the regulator, the ACMA, uses the ITU standard for radio amateurs, but I should point out that this might not be the case where you are. It's entirely possible, and given human diversity, probable even, that there are places where there are more stringent requirements, so bear that in mind.

I'll state the standard and then explain.

For frequencies greater than 30 MHz, the spurious emission must not exceed the lesser of 43 + 10 * log (power) or 70 dB.

That might sound like gobbledegook, so let's explore.

First thing to notice is that this is for transmissions where the transmitter is tuned to a frequency greater than 30 MHz, there's a separate rule for frequencies less than 30 MHz and the ITU also specifies a range of different limits for special purpose transmitters like broadcast radio and television, space services, and others.

Second thing is that the spurious emissions are calculated based on total mean output power. This means that your spurious emissions are considered in relation to how much power you're using to transmit and it implies that for some transmitters you can be in compliance at one power level, but not at another, so keep that in mind.

The phrase "the lesser of", means that from a compliance perspective, there's a point at which power levels no longer determine how much attenuation of spurious emissions is required. You can calculate that point. It's where our formula hits 70 dB, and that is at 500 Watts. In other words, to meet the ITU standard, if you're transmitting with less than 500 Watts, you're subject to the formula and if you're transmitting with more than 500 Watts, you're required to meet the 70 dB standard.

It means that, at least in Australia, spurious emissions for amateurs are dependent on transmitter power because the maximum permitted power is currently 400 Watts for an amateur holding a so-called Advanced License.

Now I'll also point out explicitly that the emission standards that the ITU specifies are for generic "radio equipment", which includes amateur radio, but also includes anything else with a transmitter.

One thing to mention is that spurious emissions aren't limited to the second and third harmonics that we measured, in fact they're not even limited to harmonics. If you're using a particular mode then anything that's transmitted outside the bandwidth of that mode is considered a spurious emission and there are standards for that as well.

As an aside, it was interesting to me that in many cases amateur radio is treated separately from other radio services, but the ITU considers our community just one of several spectrum users and it's good to remember that the entire universe is playing in the same sandbox, even if only some of it is regulated by the ITU and your local regulator.

So, let's imagine that you have a handheld radio that has a total mean power output of 5 Watts. When you calculate using the formula, you end up at 50 dB attenuation. In other words, the spurious emissions may not exceed -13 dBm. So, if your radio measures -20 dBm on the second harmonic, it's compliant for that harmonic, but if it measures -10 dBm, it's not. I should also point out that this is for each spurious emission. About half the radios we tested had a second harmonic that was worse than the third harmonic.

So, what does this mean for your radio? I'd recommend that you start reading and measuring. You'll need to measure the total mean power, and the signal strength at the base frequency and the second and third harmonic. I will mention that surprises might happen. For example, the Yaesu FT-857d radio I use every week to host a net appears to be transmitting with a power level that doesn't match its setting. At 5 Watts, it's only transmitting just over 2 Watts into the antenna, but at the 10 Watt setting, it's pretty much 10 Watts.

You also don't need a fancy tool like we were using. All these measurements are relative to each other and you could even use a $20 RTL-SDR USB dongle, but before you start transmitting into its antenna port, make sure you have enough attenuation connected between the transmitter and your dongle, otherwise you'll quickly discover the escape velocity of the magic smoke inside.

I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Gathering Data rather than Opinions ... Aug 20, 2023

Show notes

Foundations of Amateur Radio

There's nothing quite as satisfying as the click of a well designed piece of equipment. It's something that tickles the brain and done well it makes the hairs stand up on the back of your neck.

If time was on my side and I wasn't going somewhere else with this, I'd now regale you with research on the phenomenon, I'd explore the community of people building mechanical keyboards and those who restore equipment to their former glory, instead I'm encouraging you to dig whilst I talk about the second and third harmonics. This is about amateur radio after all.

Over the years there has been a steady stream of commentary around the quality of handheld radios. Some suggest that the cheaper the radio, the worse it is. Given that these kinds of radios are often the very first purchase for an aspiring amateur it would be useful to have a go at exploring this.

When a radio is designed the aim is for it to transmit exactly where it's intended to and only there. Any transmission that's not where you plan is considered a spurious emission. By carefully designing a circuit, by adding shielding, by filtering and other techniques these spurious emissions can be reduced or eliminated, but this costs money, either in the design stage, or in the cost of materials and manufacturing. It's logical to think that the cheaper the radio, the worse it is, but is it really true that a cheap radio has more spurious emissions than an expensive one?

To give you an example of a spurious emission, consider an FM transmitter tuned to the 2m amateur band, let's say 146.5 MHz. If you key the radio and all is well, the radio will only transmit at that frequency, but that's not always the case. It turns out that if you were to listen on 293 MHz, you might discover that your radio is also transmitting there. If you're familiar with the amateur radio band plan, you'll know that 293 MHz is not allocated as an amateur frequency, so we're not allowed to transmit there, in fact, in Australia that frequency is reserved for the Australian Department of Defence, and there's an additional exclusion for the Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory.

293 MHz isn't a random frequency. It's twice 146.5 MHz and it's called the second harmonic.

There's more. If you multiply the base frequency by three, you end up at 439.5 MHz, the third harmonic. In Australia, that frequency falls into the amateur allocation as a second use, its primary use is again the Department of Defence.

These two transmissions are examples of spurious emissions. To be clear, the transmitter is tuned to 146.5 MHz and these unintended extra signals come out of the radio at the same time.

This is bad for several reasons, legal and otherwise. The first, obvious one, is that you're transmitting out of band, which as an amateur you already have no excuse for, since getting your license requires you to understand that this is strictly not allowed.

The International Telecommunications Union, or ITU, has specific requirements for what's permitted in the way of spurious emissions from an amateur station.

Spurious emissions also mean that there is energy being wasted. Instead of the signal only coming out at the intended frequency, some of it is appearing elsewhere, making the 5 Watts you paid for less effective than you hoped for.

So, what's this got to do with the click I started with?

Well, thanks to Randall, VK6WR, I have on loan a heavy box with a Cathode Ray Tube or Green CRT screen, lots of buttons and knobs and the ability to measure such spurious emissions. It's marked "HP 8920A RF Communications Test Set". Using this equipment is very satisfying. You switch it on and a fan starts whirring. After a moment you hear a beep, then the screen announces itself, almost as-if there's a PC in there somewhere - turns out that there is and the beep is the Power On Self Test, or POST beep. Originally released in 1992, this magic box can replace 22 instruments for transceiver testing. I started downloading user manuals, oh boy, there's lots to learn. Bringing back lots of memories, it even has a programming language, Instrument BASIC, to control it. Where have you been all my life? Turns out that in 1992 this piece of kit cost as much as my car. Anything for the hobby right?

At the next HAMfest I'll be using it to measure as many handhelds as I can get my hands on and taking notes. I have no idea how many I'll be able to test, but I'm looking forward to putting some numbers against the repeated claims of quality and price. I can tell you that a couple of weeks ago I got together with Randall and Glynn VK6PAW and spent an enjoyable afternoon testing several radios and there are some surprising results already.

Perhaps this is something you might attempt at your next community event, gather data, rather than opinions...

I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Jumping into the unknown ... Aug 13, 2023

Show notes

Foundations of Amateur Radio

If you walk into your radio shack and switch on a light, the result is instantaneous, one moment it's dark, the next it's not. What if I told you that as immediate as it appears, there is actually a small delay between you closing the circuit and the light coming on. Likely the distance between your switch and your light is less than say 10 meters, so the delay is likely to be less than 33 nanoseconds, not something you'd notice unless you're out to measure it.

What if your light switch is 3,200 km away? That's the length of the first transatlantic telegraph cable in 1858.

Let's start with the notion that between the action of closing a switch, or applying a voltage at one end of the cable and it being seen at the other end takes time. If we ignore the wire for a moment, pretending that both ends are separated by vacuum, then the delay between the two ends is just over 10 milliseconds because that's how long it takes travelling at the speed of light. One of the effects of using a cable is that it slows things down. In case you're curious, the so-called Velocity Factor describes by how much. A common Velocity Factor of 66 would slow this down by 66%.

This means that there is a time when there is voltage at one end and no voltage at the other.

There are a few other significant and frequency dependent things going on, we'll get to them, but before we go any further, it's important to consider a couple of related issues.

Ohm's Law, which describes the relationship between voltage, current and resistance in an electrical circuit was first introduced in 1827 by Georg Ohm in his book: "The Galvanic Chain, Mathematically Worked Out". Initially, his work was not well received and his rival, Professor of Physics Georg Friedrich Pohl went so far as to describe it as "an unmistakable failure", convincing the German Minister for Education that "a physicist who professed such heresies was unworthy to teach science."

Although today Ohm's Law is part and parcel of being an amateur, it wasn't until 1841 that the Royal Society in London recognised the significance of his discovery, awarding the Society's oldest and most prestigious award, the Copley Medal, in recognition for "researches into the laws of electric currents".

I'll point out that Ohm only received recognition because his work was changing the way people were starting to build electrical engines and word of mouth eventually pressured the Royal Society into the formal recognition he deserved.

I also mentioned the speed of light in relation to the delay between applying a voltage and it being seen at the other end, but it wasn't until 1862 when James Clerk Maxwell published a series of papers called "On Physical Lines of Force" that light speed was actually derived when he combined electricity and magnetism and proved that light was an electromagnetic wave, and that there were other "invisible" waves, which Heinrich Rudolph Hertz discovered as radio waves in 1888.

How we understand transmission lines today went through a similar discovery process. Your radio is typically connected to an antenna using a length of coaxial cable, which is a description for the shape the cable has, but the nature of the cable, what it does, is what's known as a transmission line.

If you looked at the submarine telegraph cable of 1858, you'd recognise it as coaxial cable, but at the time there wasn't much knowledge about conductance, capacitance, resistance and inductance, let alone frequency dependencies. James Clerk Maxwell's equations weren't fully formed until 1865, seven years after the first transatlantic telegraph cable was commissioned and the telegraph equations didn't exist until 1876, 18 years after the first telegram between the UK and the USA.

In 1854 physicist William Thomson, was asked for his opinion on some experiments by Michael Faraday who had demonstrated that the construction of the transatlantic telegraph cable would limit the rate or bandwidth at which messages could be sent. Today we know William Thomson as the First Lord Kelvin, yes, the one we named the temperature scale after. Mr. Thomson was a prolific scientist from a very young age.

Over a month, using the analogy with the heat transfer theory of Joseph Fourier, Thomson proposed "The Law of Squares", an initial explanation for why signals sent across undersea cables appeared to be smeared across time, also known as dispersion of the signal, to such an extent that dits and dahs started to overlap, requiring the operator to slow down in order for their message to be readable at the other end and as a result, message speed for the first cable was measured in minutes per word, rather than words per minute.

Today we know this phenomenon as intersymbol interference.

It wasn't until 1876 that Oliver Heaviside discovered how to counter this phenomenon using loading coils based on his description of what we now call the Heaviside condition where you can, at least mathematically, create a telegraph cable without dispersion. It was Heaviside's transmission line model that first demonstrated frequency dependencies and this model can be applied to anything from low frequency power lines, audio frequency telephone lines, and radio frequency transmission lines.

Thomson worked out that, against the general consensus of the day, doubling the line would actually quadruple the delay needed. It turns out that the length of the line was so significant that the second cable laid in 1865, 560 km shorter, outperformed the original cable by almost ten times, even though it was almost identical in construction, providing physical proof of Thomson's work.

It has been said that the 1858 transatlantic telegraph cable was the scientific equivalent of landing man on the Moon. I'm not sure if that adequately explains just how far into the unknown we jumped. Perhaps if we blindfolded Neil Armstrong whilst he was landing the Eagle...

I'm Onno VK6FLAB

How fast is Morse code? Aug 06, 2023

Show notes

Foundations of Amateur Radio

The first official telegram to pass between two continents was a letter of congratulations from Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom to President of the United States James Buchanan on 16 August 1858. The text is captured in the collection of the US Library of Congress. It's a low resolution image of a photo of a wood engraving. Based on me counting the characters, the text from the Queen to the President is about 650 characters. IEEE reports it as 98 words, where my count gives 103 words or 95 words, depending on how you count the address.

Due to a misunderstanding between the operators at either end of the 3,200 km long cable, the message took 16 hours to transmit and 67 minutes to repeat back. If you use the shortest duration, the effective speed is just over one and a half Words Per Minute or WPM. That's not fast in comparison with speeds we use today. Until 2003, the ITU expected that emergency and meteorological messages should not exceed 16 WPM, that a second class operator could achieve 20 WPM and a first class operator could achieve 25 WPM.

To put the message speed in context of the era, in 1856, RMS Persia, an iron paddle wheel steamship and at the time, the largest ship in the world, won the so-called "Blue Riband" for the fastest westbound transatlantic voyage between Liverpool and Sandy Hook. The journey took nine days, 16 hours and 16 minutes. Similarly, it wasn't until 1861 that a transcontinental telegraph was established across the United States. In 1841 it took 110 days for the news of the death in office of President William Henry Harrison to reach Los Angeles. Today that distance is covered by a 39 hour drive, a 5 hour flight, and about 12 milliseconds on HF radio.

So, while the speed of the message might not be anything to write home about today, at the time it was world changing.

Speed in Morse code is measured in a specific way. Based on International Morse code, which is what I'm using throughout this discussion, if you send the word "PARIS" a dozen times in a minute and the next time starts right on the next minute, you officially sent Morse at 12 WPM.

Looking inside the message of the word "PARIS", it's made up of a collection of dits and dahs. If a dit is one unit of time, then the letter "a", represented by dit-dah, is six units long when you include the spacing. In total, the word "PARIS", including the space after it, is exactly 50 units long. When you send at 12 WPM, you're effectively sending 600 dit units per minute, or ten units or bits per second, each lasting a tenth of a second.

Unfortunately, there is not a one-to-one relationship between Morse speed and ASCII, the American Standard Code for Information Interchange, for a number of reasons. Firstly, Morse is made from symbols with varying lengths, where ASCII, the encoding that we really want to compare speeds with, has symbols with a fixed length. You cannot simply count symbols in both and compare their speeds, since communication speed is about what you send, how fast you send it, and how readable it is at the other end.

Thanks to Aiden, AD8GM, who, inspired by my initial investigation, shared the idea and python code to encode Morse dits, dahs and spacing using a one for a dit, one-one-one for a dah, and zeros for spacing. This means that the letter "e" can be represented by "10" and the letter "t" by "1110".

You can do this for the standard Morse word "PARIS" and end up with a combination of 50 zeros and ones, or exactly 50 bits. I've been extending the code that Aiden wrote to include other encoding systems. When I have something to show it will be on my GitHub page.

However, using Aiden's idea, we gain the ability to directly compare sending Morse bits with ASCII bits, since they share the same zero and one encoding. If you use standard binary encoded ASCII, each letter takes up eight bits and the six characters for the word "PARIS", including the space, will take up 48 bits. Given that I just told you that the Morse version of the same message takes up 50 bits, you could now smile and say, see, ASCII is faster - wait, what?

Yes, if you send the word "PARIS " using 8-bit binary coded ASCII it's two bits shorter than if you use Morse. Job done, roll the press, headline reads: "Morse is four percent slower than binary coded ASCII".

Not so fast grasshopper.

If you recall, American Morse code, the one that has Samuel Morse's name written all over it, was replaced by a different code, made by Friedrich Gerke which in turn was modified to become what we now know as International Morse code.

Ask yourself, why did Gerke change the code? It turns out that one of the biggest issues with getting a message across an undersea cable was decoding the message at the other end. Let me give you an example, using American Morse, consider the encoding of "e", dit, and "o", dit-extra-space-dit and now try sending the word "seed" across a noisy line. Did you convey "seed", or was it "sod". In other words, there is room for ambiguity in the message and when you're talking about commerce, that's never a good basis for coming to a mutually binding agreement.

It turns out that encoding needs to be more subtle than just creating a sequence of bits.

Something else to consider, 10 bits per second is another way of saying 10 Hz, as-in, this is not just switching, we're dealing with frequencies and because we're not sending lovely sinusoidal waves, from a signal processing perspective, a very horrible square wave, we're also dealing with harmonics, lots of harmonics, and more of them as we speed things up.

So, if you send binary coded ASCII and compare it to Morse code, will your message actually arrive?

I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Will the real inventor of Morse code please stand? Jul 30, 2023

Show notes

Foundations of Amateur Radio

Morse code is a way for people to send information across long distances. The code we use today, made from dit and dah elements is nothing like the code demonstrated and attributed to Samuel Morse in 1837.

Over years and with assistance from Professor of Chemistry Leonard Gail and Physicist Joseph Henry, then Professor of Literature, Samuel Morse, and mechanically minded Alfred Vail developed an electrical telegraph system that automatically moved a paper tape and used an electromagnet to pull a stylus into the paper and a spring to retract it, marking the paper with lines. The original system was only intended to transmit numbers, and combined with a dictionary, the operator could decode the message. The telegraph was able to send zig-zag and straight lines, transmitting the message "Successful experiment with telegraph September 4 1837". The system was enhanced to include letters, making it much more versatile. On the 6th of January 1838, across 4.8 km of wire, strung across a barn, the new design with letters and numbers was demonstrated.

To optimise the enhanced version of the code, Alfred Vail went to his local newspaper in Morristown, New Jersey, to count the movable type he found in the compositor's type-cases, and assigned shorter sequences to the most common letters. You might think that this explains the distribution of the codes we see today, but you'd be wrong.

The 1838 system used four different element lengths and varied the spacing inside a character. For example, the letter "o" was signified by two dits with a two unit space between them, where today it's represented by three dahs. The letter "p" was signified by five dits, today this represents the number "5", and the code didn't distinguish between "i" and "y", between "g" and "j", and between "s" and "z".

A decade later and an ocean away in Germany, writer, journalist, and musician Friedrich Gerke created the Hamburg alphabet, based on the work by Vail and Morse, it standardised the length of the elements and spacing into what we use today, the dit and the dah. He changed about half of the characters and also incorporated four special German characters, the umlaut version of A, O and U and the CH sound - pronounced like the sound for the composer "Bach" or the Dutch name "Benschop" - not to be confused with the CH in child, or the CK in clock, or the SH sound in shop. It was different in other ways. For example, the letter "i" and "j" had the same code. The code was optimised to be more robust across undersea telegraph cables. I'll be coming back to that before we're done exploring, but not today. If you want to skip ahead, the term you're looking for is dispersion. Gerke's code was adopted in 1851 across Germany and Austria and it is known as Continental Morse code.

By the time most of Gerke's code was adopted as the European Standard in 1865 as one of many agreements that mark the founding of the International Telegraph Union in Paris, only four sequences of the original 1838 code remained and only two of those, "e" and "h" were identical. Which means that although the idea that Morse code is based around English is often repeated, at this stage it's nothing more than a myth, which my previous word list and subsequent dictionary letter counts across over fifty languages confirm.

I'll mention that given Gerke's German heritage, I also made a letter count from a modern German dictionary and one from 1901 and found that the letter distribution in those two are very similar with only the letter "s" and "t" swapped between position four and five in the popularity contest stakes. The German letter Top-5 is "enrts" and the "o" is the 16th most popular letter.

Speaking of "o", one observation to make is that the new International Morse code contained the letter "o" as dah-dah-dah, it also contained the letter "p" as dit-dah-dah-dit. These two codes come from an 1849 telegraph code designed by physicist, inventor, engineer and astronomer Carl August von Steinheil. There is evidence suggesting that he invented a print telegraph and matching dot script in 1836, based around positive and negative pulses, rather than pulse duration. I'm purposely skipping over earlier telegraph systems built and used by Carl Friedrich Gauss, Wilhelm Edward Weber, and Steinheil, only because we're talking about Morse code, not the telegraph.

The 1865 ITU standard for International Morse code includes several accented letters, symbols for semi-colon, exclamation mark, chevrons and several control codes and both normal and short forms for numbers which merge all the dahs in any digit into a single dah. Many of these codes are not part of the official standard today.

I'll point out that over time, experienced telegraph operators learnt to decode dits and dahs based on sound alone, negating the need for paper. This translates directly into how we experience Morse in our hobby today, by tone only.

There is a much more detailed explanation on how the telegraph evolved in a book by Russel W. Burns called: "Communications: An International History of the Formative Years". Fair warning, there are many claims and counterclaims, including the possibility that someone else entirely, Harrison Gray Dyar, a Chemist, invented an electrochemical telegraph, using chemically treated paper to make marks, dits and dahs, and demonstrated it between 1826 and 1828 near a race track on Long Island.

I'm mentioning this because Samuel Morse is often attributed as the source of all things telegraphy, but the reality appears to be much more nuanced and, unsurprisingly, there are conflicting accounts depending on the source, including acceptance and repudiation that Alfred Vail was the inventor of what we now call Morse code.

I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Is Morse really built around the most popular letters in English? Jul 23, 2023

Show notes

Foundations of Amateur Radio

Thanks to several high profile races we already know that sending Morse is faster than SMS. Recently I started digging into the underpinnings of Morse code to answer the question, "Can you send Morse faster than binary encoded ASCII?" Both ASCII, the American Standard Code for Information Interchange and Morse are techniques to encode information for electronic transmission. One is built for humans, the other for computers.

To answer the question, which is faster, I set out to investigate. I'm using the 2009 ITU or International Telecommunications Union standard Morse for this.

Morse is said to be optimised for sending messages in English. In Morse the letter "e", represented by "dit" is the quickest to send, the next is the letter "t", "dah", followed by "i", dit-dit, "a", dit-dah, "n", dah-dit, and "m", dah-dah.

The underlying idea is that communication speed is increased by making the most common letter the fastest to send and so-on. Using a computer this is simple to test. I counted the letters of almost 400,000 words of my podcast and discovered that "e" is indeed the most common letter, the letter "t" is next, then "a", "o", and "i". Note that I said "letter". The most common character in my podcast is the "space", which in Morse takes seven dits to send.

Also note that the Morse top-5 is "etian", the letter "o" is 14th on the list in terms of speed. In my podcast it's the fourth most popular letter, mind you, my name is "Onno", so you might think that is skewing the data.

Not so much.

If I use the combined works of Shakespeare, and given that it represents an older and less technical use of language, and doesn't feature my name, I figured it might have a different result. The top-5 in his words are "etoai", the letter "o" is the third most popular, and "space" still leads the charge, by nearly 3 times.

I also had access to a listing of 850 job advertisements, yes, still looking, and the character distribution top-5 is "eotin", the letter "o" is the second most popular letter.

Because I can, and I'm well, me, I converted the ITU Morse Code standard to text and counted the characters there too. The top-5 letters are "etion", but the full stop is a third more popular than the letter "e", mind you that might be because the people at the ITU still need to learn how to use a computer, seriously, storing documents inside the "Program Files" directory under the ITU_Admin user, what were you thinking? I digress. The "space" is still on top, nearly six times as common as the letter "e".

As an aside, it's interesting to note that you cannot actually transmit the ITU Morse standard using standard Morse, since the document contains square brackets, a multiplication symbol, asterisks, a copyright symbol, percent signs, em-dashes, and both opening and closing quotation marks, none of which exist as valid symbols.

Back to Morse. The definition has other peculiarities. For example the open parenthesis takes less time to send than the closing one, but you would think that they are equally common, given that they come in pairs. If you look at numbers, "5" takes the least amount to send, "0" the longest. In my podcast text "0" is a third more common than "1" and "9" is the least common. In Shakespeare, "9" is the most common, "8" the least, and in job listings, "0" and "2" go head-to-head, and both are four times as common as the number "7" which is the least common.

All this to say that character distribution is clearly not consistent across different texts and Morse is built around more than the popularity of letters of the alphabet. For example, the difference between the left and right parenthesis is a dah at the end. If you know one of the characters, you know the other. The numerical digits follow a logical progression from all dits to all dahs between "0" and "9". In other words, the code appears to be designed with humans in mind.

There are other idiosyncrasies. Most of the code builds in sequences, but there are gaps. If you visualise Morse as a tree, the letter "e" has two children, both starting with a dit, one followed by another dit, or dit-dit, the letter "i", and the other, followed by a dah, dit-dah, the letter "a". Similarly, the letter "t", a dah, has two children dah-dit, "n" and dah-dah, "m". This sequence can be built for many definitions, but not all. The letter "o", dah-dah-dah, has no direct children. There's no dah-dah-dah-dit or dah-dah-dah-dah sequence in Morse. The letter "u", dit-dit-dah has one child "f", dit-dit-dah-dit, but the combination dit-dit-dah-dah is not valid Morse.

It's those missing combinations that led me to believe that Morse isn't as efficient as it could be and what originally led me to investigate the underpinnings of this language.

I think it's fair to conclude at this point that Morse isn't strictly optimised for English, or if it is, a very small subset of the language. It has several eccentricities, not unlike the most popular computer keyboard layout, QWERTY, which wasn't laid out for humans or speed typing, rather the opposite, it was to slow a typist down to prevent keys from getting in each other's way when there was still a mechanical arm punching a letter into a page.

In other words, Morse code has a history.

Now I'm off to start throwing some CPU cycles at the real question. Is Morse code faster than binary encoded ASCII?

I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Adventures with Morse Code Jul 16, 2023

Show notes

Foundations of Amateur Radio

If you've ever looked at Morse Code, you might be forgiven if you conclude that it appears to be a less than ideal way of getting information from point A to point B. The idea is simple, based on a set of rules, you translate characters, one at a time, into a series of dits and dahs, each spaced apart according to the separation between each element, each character and each word.

The other day I came across a statement that asserted that you could send Morse faster than binary encoded ASCII letters. If you're not sure what that means, there are many different ways to encode information. In Morse, the letter "e" is the first character, represented by "dit", the letter "t" is the second character, represented by "dah". In ASCII, the American Standard Code for Information Interchange, the letter "e" is the 69th character, represented by 100 0101. The letter "t" is number 84 on the list, represented by 101 0100.

A couple of things to observe. The order of the characters between Morse and ASCII are not the same. That doesn't really matter, as long as both the sender and receiver agree that they're using the same list. Another thing to notice is that in Morse, letters are encoded using dits and dahs and appropriate spacing. In ASCII, or technically, binary coded ASCII, the letters are encoded using zero and one.

I'll also mention that there are plenty of other ways to encode information, EBCDIC or Extended Binary Coded Decimal Interchange Code was defined by IBM for its mainframe and mid-range computers. It's still in use today. In EBCDIC, the letter "e" is 133 and the letter "t" is 163. It was based around punched cards to ensure that hole punches were not too close together. It was designed for global use and can, for example, support Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Greek. Another encoding you might have heard of is UTF-16, which supports over a million different characters including all the emojis in use today.

Before I continue, I must make a detour past the ITU or the International Telecommunications Union. The ITU has a standard, called "Recommendation M.1677-1", approved on the 3rd of October 2009, which defines International Morse code. I'm making that point because I'm going to dig deeper into Morse and it helps if we're talking about the same version of Morse. I have talked about many versions of Morse before, so I'll leave that alone, but I will point out a couple of things.

The ITU defines 56 unique Morse sequences or characters. The obvious ones are the letters of the alphabet, the digits and several other characters like parentheses, quotes, question mark, full-stop, and comma, including the symbol in the middle of an email address, which it calls the "commercial at symbol" with a footnote telling us that the French General Committee on Terminology approved the term "arobase" in December 2002, but it seems that seven years isn't enough time to convince the ITU to update its own standard, mind you, the rest of the world, well, the English speaking part, calls it "at", the letter "a" with a circle around it, as in my email address, cq@vk6flab.com.

Another thing to note is that this standard is only available in English, Arabic, Chinese, French and Russian, so I'm not sure what the Spanish, Hindi, Portuguese, Bengali and Japanese communities, who represent a similar population size do for their Morse definitions. It's interesting to note that as part of its commitment to multilingualism, the ITU actually defines six official languages. Specifically, the "Spanish" version of the standard appears to be missing.

There's other curious things. For example, the standard defines a special character called "accented e", though it doesn't describe which accent, given that there are four variants in French alone, I found at least seven versions and it completely ignores accents on the i, the c, the o, special character combinations like "sz" in German and "ij" in Dutch. This isn't to throw shade on Morse, it's to point out that it's an approximation of a language with odd variations. I'm also going to ignore capitalisation. In Morse there's none and in ASCII, there are definitions for both, capitalised and not.

In addition to things you write in a message, there's also control codes. The ITU defines six specific Morse control codes. Things like "Understood", "Wait", and "Error". ASCII has those too. The first 31 codes in ASCII are reserved for controls like "linefeed", "carriage return", and "escape".

There are other oddities. The ITU specifies that the control code "Invitation to transmit" is symbolised by dah-dit-dah. If you're familiar with Morse, you'll know that this is the same as the letter "k". The specification says that multiplication is dah-dit-dit-dah, which is the same as "x". There's also rules on how to signify percentages and fractions using dah-dit-dit-dit-dit-dah, the hyphen, as a separator.

At this point I haven't even gotten close to exploring efficiency, but my curiosity is in overdrive. Is Morse really optimised for English, or are there other forces at work? I'm already digging.

I'm Onno VK6FLAB

The nature and ownership of information Jul 09, 2023

Show notes

Foundations of Amateur Radio

Have you ever made an international contact using amateur radio and used that towards tracking an award like for example the DXCC? If you're not familiar, it's an award for amateurs who make contact with at least 100 "distinct geographic and political entities".

In 1935 the American Radio Relay League, or ARRL published an article by Clinton B. DeSoto, W1CBD, titled: "How to Count Countries Worked: A New DX Scoring System". In the article he asks: "Are Tasmania and Australia separate countries?"

In case you're wondering, Tasmania has, at least in legal terms, been part of Australia since Federation in 1901. Not to be confused with New Zealand, a separate country over 4,000 kilometres to the east of Australia, Tasmania is the island at the south eastern tip of Australia. It was previously called the Colony of Tasmania, between 1856 and 1901 and before that it was called Van Diemen's Land between 1642 and 1856. Before then it was inhabited by the palawa people who lived there for about 42,000 years. They eventually became isolated after being cut off from the mainland by the Bass Strait when about 10,000 years ago sea levels rose due to the ice age coming to an end. In the last remaining local Aboriginal language 'palawa kani' it appears to have been called 'lutruwita' (/lu-tru-wee-ta/), but no living speakers of any of the original Tasmanian languages exist. As audio evidence, we have a few barely audible sounds spoken by Fanny Cochrane Smith on a wax record from 1899 on which she sang traditional songs.

I'm mentioning this to illustrate that DeSoto asking the question: "Are Tasmania and Australia separate countries?" is, in my opinion, fundamentally misguided. More so because of an island, well, rock, Boundary Islet, that's split by a border, one half belonging to Victoria, the other half to Tasmania. Specifically, since 1825, the state of Victoria and the state of Tasmania share a land border thanks to a survey error made in 1801. If you're into Islands on the Air, or IOTA, it's part of the Hogan Island Group which for activation purposes is part of the Furneaux Group, which has IOTA designation OC-195.

One point to make is that today the DXCC does not mention Tasmania, either as a separate entity, or as a deleted entity. It was removed from the DXCC in 1947.

The DXCC list is pretty famous in amateur radio circles. It's not the only such list. I already mentioned the IOTA list which contains a list of islands and island groups and their IOTA designation. There's also a list of 40 groups of callsign prefixes called CQ zones, published in CQ magazine, and a list of IARU regions maintained by the International Amateur Radio Union. There's also an ITU zone list, maintained by the International Telecommunications Union.

Each of these lists are essentially grouped collections with an attached label.

The list of DXCC entities is copyrighted by the ARRL. If you want to use it for anything other than personal use you need to ask permission. In other words, if you write software that for example tracks amateur radio contacts and you make that software available for others to use, you officially need permission from the ARRL to use it to track a DXCC. If you're an amateur outside of the United States your peak body will need permission from the ARRL to issue any DXCC award.

The ITU, the International Telecommunications Union is a United Nations specialised agency, part of our global community, owned by all humans. It peppers its content with copyright notices. The same is true for the International Amateur Radio Union, the IARU, the global representative body of all radio amateurs. It too peppers its content with copyright notices, even going so far as to add requirements that "(a)ny copy or portion must include a copyright notice" and that "(i)t is used for informational, non-commercial purposes only".

Let me ask you a question.

Can you achieve a DXCC without international cooperation?

Of course not. If you are an American amateur and want to get an award for contacting 100 distinct geographic and political entities, you can only do so by making contacts outside the United States of America.

As an Australian however, I have, according to the February 2022 version of the DXCC list, 340 countries to choose from, only one of which is the United States of America, and Alaska isn't part of the United States, apparently.

It might appear that I'm singling out the ARRL, but that's not true. CQ Communications, Inc. owns the list of CQ Zones, the ITU owns the list of ITU zones, the IARU owns the list of IARU Regions, Islands On The Air Ltd. and the Radio Society of Great Britain own the IOTA list and Clinton B. DeSoto W1CBD became a silent key in 1949, his copyright expired in 1999.

So, is grouping and labelling things sufficient to actually claim copyright? Can I claim copyright for all countries starting with the letter 'A' and calling it the 'Alpha Amateur Award'? My preliminary list for the 'Alpha Amateur Award' includes Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria and Azerbaijan and because it's not part of the United States, Alaska. Which reminds me, to encourage amateur radio activity in continents that need more, I'll add Africa and Antarctica. Consider that the 2023 edition of the triple A.

A bigger question to ask is: "Why should I need permission to use any of these lists?"

Can I create a public repository on GitHub that has all these lists in a single place, so others could use them without needing to hunt? What if I wanted to reformat and reuse these lists to create an online service to show the relationship between each of these lists for use by all radio amateurs? What if I wanted to charge a subscription fee to pay for the service? What if I wanted to roll out a whole company behind it and pay people to maintain it?

I'm all for people creating things and receiving credit, but at some point we start to take away from the community instead of giving back to it. Are these lists really owned by the various organisations claiming copyright and requiring written permission for their use, or do they belong to all radio amateurs?

Oh, the 'Alpha Amateur Award' list is copyleft. Look it up.

I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Asking a professional in the community... Jul 02, 2023

Show notes

Foundations of Amateur Radio

In the earlier days of my career I worked in a computing centre at a university surrounded by people with different interests and experiences in computing. There were programmers, hardware engineers, technicians, sales people, administrators, educators, support staff, statisticians and even a librarian.

There wasn't a lot of socialising or foosball, but every now and then we'd bump into each other in the lunchroom and talk about things that were not work related. During such conversations I learnt that people had all manner of interests outside their work, they were volunteer firefighters, or building their house, or active in the girl guides and any number of other unrelated pursuits and skills.

That same is true for the people inside the hobby of amateur radio. I've met people who were submariners, tow-truck drivers, accountants, paramedics, radio astronomers, telco and broadcast engineers, doctors, IT people, lots of IT people, and plenty of other professions.

As you might know, I'm self-employed. I am now acutely aware of mixing business with pleasure because not that long ago, every single time I met another person outside my field I'd get asked about some or other computer problem. Similarly I've witnessed medical professionals being asked about specific and personal medical issues and every time I experienced it or noticed it, a little part of me shied away from either telling people what I did or asking others for professional advice.

Now before you think that I'm telling you not to talk about computers within earshot of me, that's not at all what this is about. It's about building an awareness that there are people in your community from all kinds of different backgrounds with different experiences, something which I've talked about many times before, but, and here's a new thing, some of those people do not want to give free professional advice, or be dragged kicking and screaming back into their day-job when they're out having fun.

There's a difference between talking about what a virus is and asking about which computer to buy, a difference between talking about the neurological aspects of mushrooms and asking if someone can help you with deciding which medication to use. There's a difference between talking about radio telescopes and asking to access laboratory measuring equipment.

If you're unsure where the line is, think of it in this way. If your mate is a plumber, it's one thing asking them what sand in your sink means and another thing entirely to ask them to dig up your backyard.

I'm not telling you how to live your life, I'm asking you to be considerate of those around you who might have a skill set that you lack and need, whom you've met through the amateur community.

An example of how you might navigate this process is to ask the person if it's appropriate to ask a specific question and to be prepared for hearing "No". Or you might be surprised and find that they're happy to help, to a point. I'd encourage you to be mindful of that point.

In case you're wondering, nobody has been stepping on my toes and if you recently asked me a question, you haven't overstepped any lines.

At this point you might be wondering what this has to do with amateur radio and why I'm talking about it now. The answer lies in the nature and evolution of our community. If you look at us as we were a century ago, like I did extensively when I discussed the evolving nature of the so-called "Amateur's Code", apparently written in 1923 by Lieut.-Commander Paul. M. Segal, you'll know that the community from last century is nothing like the community today.

I'm sure that you agree that today we're not Gentlemanly, we're not beholden to the ARRL, and we're not all male, to name a few obvious changes and as a result the Amateur's code was updated, many times, to reflect our evolution.

Those changes came about because people had ideas, had discussions, wrote things down and shared them. That's what this is. A mark on the page saying that I'd like our community to be mindful of the expectations made of the members of the community around us.

Where are your boundaries and what did you do when someone stepped on them?

I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Foundations of Amateur Radio

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected