Very simple idea. All exchanges with RST, if you hear Key Click - send 599K or
even 595K. If you get 'k' more than like 10% of exchange, you may be
disqualified or lose score. NN5T Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+nn5t=attglobal.net@contesting.com> On
Behalf Of Randy Thompson
Sent: November 15, 2020 03:22
To: Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net>; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Key Clicks.... Continuing Problem
I appreciate that you are trying to do something, but this is an opportunity to
follow a process and build up the motivation of the CAC. You will get a much
better result and set the stage for the future better than just trying to do
everything yourself.
The main complaint I have heard about the League and contesting lately is more
about poor decisions than no decisions. Build and trust a process. There is a
lot of expertise available that wants to help. If the CAC isn't working, start
by looking inward and trying to understand why.
The recent BoD vote that enabled the PSC to make rules changes without going to
the Board was a good step. But, it doesn't mean the PSC should just do
whatever it wants.
Randy K5ZD
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+k5zd=outlook.com@contesting.com> On Behalf
Of Michael Ritz
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 1:13 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Key Clicks.... Continuing Problem
Randy;
"I must admit some surprise that a task like this would fall into the domain of
a Director of the League."
I'm on the ARRL Board's Programs and Services committee, (PSC), along with four
more Directors, and others. The rest of the remaining ten Directors are either
on the Executive Committee, or the Administration and Finance Committee, both
which deal more with actually running the ARRL and governance. Our purview is
ARRL contests and events (such as Field Day), awards, the DXCC program,
contests, and for now, the ARES program under a sub-committee.
(If you read the Board minutes at all, you will see that I have been involved
in many of the recent Board governance motions anyway. I've done that in "rogue
Director" mode, not as part of a committee.)
So, why am I involved here? I brought the "key click" issue (I noted it also
during CQWW CW), before the PSC in a recent meeting after somebody here noted,
then I confirmed, that the ARRL General Contest Rules on the subject were a lot
more vague than those employed by CQ. I volunteered for the tasking in this
case in order to get this minor rules clarification done quickly, and on the
books. HQ staff is still under COVID guidelines, and most of the building is
empty. It was felt by the committee that this did not need to go to the CAC as
a big and drawn out project. I'm basically just spelling out in our rules what
is already noted in FCC Part 97.307, paragraphs (a),(b),and (c). Those cover,
in order, excessive bandwidth, splatter and keyclicks, and spurious emissions.
(Without specific parameters, I might add.)
People have two big criticisms about the ARRL. Number one is: "nobody listens
to us". Well, I do, otherwise you wouldn't be hearing from me.
Number two is: "you guys don't do anything". Well, at least I try.
73;
Mike
W7VO
> On 11/13/2020 6:30 PM Randy Thompson <k5zd@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>
> I must admit some surprise that a task like this would fall into the domain
> of a Director of the League. Are there not staff to handled such details?
> This seems like a perfect tasking for the underutilized Contest Advisory
> Committee.
>
> This is also a much more difficult topic to write rules around than it might
> seem. The CQ WW added rules about signal quality a few years ago. The
> following falls under section XII.A Unsportsmanlike Conduct. "Signals with
> excessive bandwidth (e.g., splatter, clicks) or harmonics on other bands."
>
> Several of the CQ WW Contest Committee members have spent time trying
> to come up with a more formal definition of wide signals that could be
> used with audio recordings to make a solid case. I.e., something more
> than "knowing a bad signal when we see it." It has been a challenge.
> Jukka OH6LI did a write up on SSB signal quality at
> https://www.cqww.com/ssbsignalquality.htm
>
> It is probably best not to tie to specific rules or technologies. Bandwidth
> seems to be the best metric for determining signal quality. A signal is
> either within expected norms for the given mode or not. The challenge is how
> to measure that after the contest.
>
> 73,
>
> Randy K5ZD
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+k5zd=outlook.com@contesting.com>
> On Behalf Of Michael Ritz
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 5:50 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Key Clicks.... Continuing Problem
>
> Not that it means much, but I am in the process of updating the ARRL General
> Contest rules to include "clean signal" requirements, including key clicks
> and splatter. Right now there is only a general "entrants are bound by
> regulations of their national licensing authority" in the ARRL rules. That
> implies FCC Part 97.307 for US entrants, but what about everybody else in the
> world?
>
> What I'm proposing to add "Each participant in an ARRL sponsored contest
> shall take precautions to ensure that all signals emitted are free from
> excessive bandwidth, splatter, key clicks, or other spurious emissions".
>
> As far as adjudication, I'm adding under "Disqualification and Penalties":
> "Unsportsmanlike conduct will not be tolerated in ARRL contests. The ARRL
> reserves the right to take disciplinary action, up to and including
> disqualification, for entrants that violate this rule. This includes the
> emission of signals that do not meet applicable standards as specified...."
>
> Keep in mind that we (the ARRL) now have a pretty sophisticated Volunteer
> Monitor program in place, and they are looking for not only band-edge
> violators, but signal quality violations as well. Of course, still only for
> US entrants.
>
>
>
> 73;
> Mike
> W7VO
>
>
> > On 11/12/2020 1:50 PM Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Great post, Jim. Thanks!
> >
> > Based on what I learned doing that study several years ago of ARRL
> > Lab data, I completely agree. There are other things we can do as well.
> > After I gave a preliminary version of that study to someone who I
> > strongly suspected would pass it along to Yaesu, whose radios were
> > the worst offenders, a firmware upgrade for that series of radios
> > was released that improved keying to the extent that it looked more
> > like the second worst offender (of that generation), ICOM. :) If
> > you have one of those rigs, by all means install the upgrade. I did
> > before and after measurements of keying bandwidth on a neighbor's FTDX500.
> > They are here.
> >
> > http://k9yc.com/P3_Spectrum_Measurements.pdf
> >
> > The study of ARRL Lab data is here.
> >
> > http://k9yc.com/TXNoise.pdf
> >
> > Yes, the slowest possible rise time should be used when it can be
> > adjusted. The reason no adjustment is needed (or possible) with
> > Elecraft rigs (beginning with the K3) is that the keying waveform is
> > carefully shaped for maximum clarity and minimum clicks. Flex
> > adopted this a year or so after ARRL Labs first tested the 6500
> > series. I don't know if they've tested those rigs for keying bandwidth
> > after that upgrade.
> >
> > Another major generator of clicks (and splatter) is the use of ALC
> > between the transceiver and the power amp to control power. In
> > general, that form of ALC should ONLY be used to protect the amp
> > from faults in the antenna system, including the operator
> > transmitting into the wrong antenna. :)
> >
> > I haven't studied the current generation of Yaesu rigs on CW, but
> > the lower cost models generate terrible splatter -- typically 2 kHz
> > or more on both sides of their intended bandwidth, only 20 dB down.
> > That is, 2 kHz on the suppressed side of the carrier, and 4-5 kHz on
> > the other side of suppressed carrier. I discovered this when
> > helping a neighbor figure out why his new Yaesu was splattering,
> > also by observing it on other signals, alerting the splattering
> > station, who told me what rig he was using.
> >
> > Obviously, if the transceiver is generating the splatter (or the
> > clicks), the power amp will amplify it (and maybe add more of its own).
> > Think about it -- if someone with one of these rigs is 30dB over S9
> > in your receiver, his sidebands will be 10 dB over S9, not great if
> > you're trying to work someone on an adjacent frequency.
> >
> > Yes, there were some very clicky signals this weekend. Thankfully
> > fewer, as Elecraft and Flex rigs continue to proliferate.
> >
> > 73, Jim K9YC
> >
> > On 11/12/2020 9:23 AM, Jim McCook wrote:
> > > Anyone who has been operating in CW contests is aware of the
> > > rampant key click problem we all must deal with.
> > >
> > > If you are using a JA made radio, please check the CW rise time to
> > > be sure it's set to 8ms (unless 6ms is maximum... which needs to
> > > be changed). Also check to be sure you're not hot switching your
> > > amplifier. Key clicks in contests have become a serious problem
> > > and it's long overdue for resolution. If you use an older JA
> > > radio without that adjustment, there may be a key click mod that
> > > will eliminate those clicks.
> > >
> > > There is a reported case of a radio set for 8ms being sent to the
> > > manufacturer for repair and was returned with a 4ms setting.
> > > Please check after such repair returns.
> > >
> > > Elecraft and Flex users need not be concerned unless something is
> > > wrong with the radio.
> > >
> > > 73, Jim
> > > W6YA
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|