AD4TU
SOA/HP
15 hrs operation
275 Q's ... 556 QSO Points x 45 mults = 25,020
NA -> 1000D -> 87a -> inverted L with 10 radials
I ususally don't post my contest results to the reflector but I thought I
would this time so I could include an explanation to anyone who worked me
between 01:00 and 04:00z on Saturday night. The mysterious characters you
heard me send weren't cyrillic morse or any somesuch, instead they were the
inane utterances of my keyer as is succumbed to the RF in the environment.
I found that as the computer was sending CQ, exchanges etc if I moved my
hand any where near the Kent paddles that the message got garbled or
truncated. First time this has ever happened here and I'm at a loss to
conjecture a cause. A .01 cap from center to each post-connector solved it.
Great contest, seemingly good conditions, lots of patient stations to work.
Thanks to everyone who gave me a Q and put up with the unusual CW.
de Pete, AD4TU@esinet.net
Email: ad4tu@esinet.net
>From n3rr@cais.cais.com (Bill Hider) Sun Dec 3 23:38:07 1995
From: n3rr@cais.cais.com (Bill Hider) (Bill Hider)
Subject: Keying Problem with CT Version 9.27
Message-ID: <199512032338.SAA23404@cais.cais.com>
This problem was reported several days after CT9.27 came out, before the
CQWWCW test.
10:09 PM 12/3/95 -0500, Robert T. Liddy wrote:
>CT Version 9 Users,
>
> I wonder if anyone else ran into this problem? I've been using CT 9
>since it came
>out. Whenever a new version appears on the CT-BBS I download and use it. I
>use LPT2 for
>my CW keying interface to my ICOM xcvr. During SS/CW all was fine with 9.26.
> This weekend was the ARRL 160 Contest. I set up everything as it
>was during SS/CW
>and found I couldn't ket the radio. I started playing around verifying
>cabling, programming
>of the radio and computer, etc, etc. Nothing seemed to fix it and time was
>wasting. So, I
>just used my regular keyer and entered the QSO data seperately. All I could
>think of was that
>the keying interface built from the CT Manual got zapped somehow and I'd
>have to get new parts
>and fix it during Saturday daylight hours when 160 would be stinko.
> With new parts in hand I built a new interface according to the
>manual for a LPT. But,
>it still didn't work. So, now I reconfigured the keying interface to
>operate from a serial port.
>That worked. Now I decided my parallel ports got hosed up after I installed
>some other new
>software to be used on the InterNet. At least I was back in business using
>CT as it was intended.
> When the Contest ended, I began to wonder again what might have
>happened to screw up the
>CW keying from my LPT ports. YIKES! I then remembered that I had just
>upgraded CT from 9.26 to
>9.27 a few days before the Contest. Could that have done something evil to
>my CW capability? Naw,
>no way. Just for grins, I reloaded 9.26 and wired back in the parallel
>circuit to LPT2. It worked!
>What the heck?? So, I closed CT down and reloaded CT 9.27 (again). It
>didn't work on LPT's, but
>only worked on a serial port.
> All I can figure is that whenever the CT guys fixed whatever caused
>9.27 to be coded, they
>crashed the LPT CW keying ability that worked in 9.26 and earlier. Hey,
>stuff happens.
> I tried calling the CT-BBS, but it didn't answer (thought it was 24
>hour, 7 days). If they
>have an InterNet address, I can't find what it is.
> Am I the only one that had this problem? Oh well, at least now I am
>prepared for either
>serial or parallel port keying as needed. Also, I really appreciate having
>CT send out all the
>CQ's, exchanges, etc. a LOT more than I used to after having to do it
>manually for 1/2 the Contest.
>
>73,
> Bob
>
>
> Bob Liddy
> k8bl@en.com
>
>
|