Some things that "work better" don't always "feel better".
Steve N4LQ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Miller WB5OXQ" <wb5oxq@grandecom.net>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits
> I am wondering why anyone is trying to make a radio send cw at speeds that
> cannot be coppied by ear by most people? If you just want to send text by
> keyboard, use some other digital method that works better.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Hyder -N4NT-" <mike_n4nt@charter.net>
> To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 11:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits
>
>
> > Hi, Tom--
> >
> > I've been reading this thread somewhat puzzled. The problem may be
> > terminology. Here's what I think these folks are trying to say:
> >
> > 1. When the key closes, it brings the key line in the rig low.
> >
> > 2. When the key line goes low, it causes the transmitter to enable
itself
> to
> > be ready to transmit.
> >
> > 3. At the same time the rig introduces a delay in the key line equal to
or
> > greater than the time required for Step 2.
> >
> > 4. After the delay of Step 3, the transmitter is energized to produce RF
> > energy.
> >
> > If it doesn't work pretty much as I've described, I'll join you for a
beer
> > (and I'm a tee-totaller at present).
> >
> > 73, Mike N4NT
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tommy" <aldermant@alltel.net>
> > To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 11:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits
> >
> >
> > > It must be Sunday because my brain cell just can not tell the
difference
> > > between increasing the key-on time and decreasing the key-off time,
and
> > > changing the weight ratio of a character.
> > >
> > > If you delay the key closure, you are not keying anything, so how does
> > that
> > > increase something that has not started yet?
> > >
> > > If you delay the key closure to "decrease the keying-off time", how
can
> > you
> > > decrease the off time of something that has not started?
> > >
> > > Maybe this is one of those things that are much harder to explain the
to
> > > actually do? The radio is not going to (obviously) start producing RF
> > until
> > > the key is closed, so if your delaying the time before you close the
> key,
> > > the radio is just sitting there staring at you, until you actually
close
> > the
> > > key.
> > >
> > > I think I need a beer. At least it's something to ponder for the rest
of
> > the
> > > day. Make that two beers!
> > >
> > > Tom - W4BQF
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Don Watters" <ve1bn@eastlink.ca>
> > > To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> > > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 9:45 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits
> > >
> > >
> > > > Steve -
> > > >
> > > > You asked "How does the rig know it's "make" is being delayed by a
> > > keyer?"
> > > >
> > > > It's the reverse, the key closure is delayed to increase key-on
time,
> > or
> > > > decrease
> > > > keying-off time, by the amount of mS you set to match the rig's on
> > delay.
> > > > The
> > > > adjustment is independent of speed and is used to correct keying
> > > distortion
> > > > of
> > > > various transceivers.
> > > >
> > > > You will note that ARRL tests of key closure versus signal transmit
> > delay
> > > of
> > > > different rigs are shown. I measured the mS needed to compensate
my
> > > > rigs from those test pix. The Paragon II was "dead on" using the
> > Paragon
> > > > (1)
> > > > test results. Saved a lot of fussin".
> > > >
> > > > 73 - Don VE1BN@eastlinbk.ca
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>
> > > > To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 9:17 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes sir. I had a K3 Super Duper CMOS here for some time. I sold it
> > > because
> > > > I
> > > > > didn't like the mode B emulation. Other than that, it's ok.
> Listening
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > weight vs. "keying compensation" adjustment in another receiver,
> they
> > > > seem
> > > > > to do exactly the same thing which is to increase the length of
the
> > > > > characters. The only difference is that the "keying compensation"
> > > doesn't
> > > > > affect the K3's racus sidetone.
> > > > > Now I have a question about one of your statements.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Keying compensation allows the make to be delayed so that the
> start
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > rig's
> > > > > > keying envelope matches the keyer. The weight control is
> > different."
> > > > >
> > > > > How does the rig know it's "make" is being delayed by a keyer?
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway, for some rigs, especially ICOMS, when used in QSK mode,
> extra
> > > > weight
> > > > > is needed. When I use my MFJ 407 with the PROII in QSK mode, I
> simply
> > > > crank
> > > > > up the weight control about 30%. In Semi-bkin mode, I turn it back
> to
> > > > > normal. The sidetone in the PROII reflects this change and sounds
> > rather
> > > > > heavy. When using the K3 keyer, you get the same exact effect when
> > > > > increasing either the "weight" or "compensation". If you can stand
> to
> > > > listen
> > > > > to the sick duck sidetone of the K3, the weight of the sidetone is
> > > > preserved
> > > > > by increasing the "compensation" instead of the "weight". So
> basically
> > > the
> > > > > "compensation" adjustment is a gimmick.
> > > > > Most TenTec rigs do not seem to require additional weight but las
> Tom
> > > > > mentioned, the Omni 6+ does need a little help over about 45 WPM.
> The
> > > > Orion
> > > > > seems to be rather unpredictable in this reguard. Mine was choppy
at
> > > first
> > > > > then I upgraded the software and it sounded much better but my QSK
> > > became
> > > > > slow. Maybe there's a relation!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve N4LQ
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Don Watters" <ve1bn@eastlink.ca>
> > > > > To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 7:45 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Whatever, Steve. Please don't take me for a fool. Guess I am
> just
> > a
> > > > > lucky
> > > > > > fellow
> > > > > > with a CMOS Superkeyer 3 which can compensate keying in various
> > rigs.
> > > > > Ever
> > > > > > try one? Was a cmcl op, used a bug for 40 years from early ham
> > days
> > > in
> > > > > > 1946
> > > > > > until I sold my little Zephyr 5 years ago. I've used the CMOS
for
> > the
> > > > past
> > > > > > 9.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guess I'm a true blue CW op too!! I know you don't tighten
the
> > > dits
> > > > up
> > > > > > on a bug
> > > > > > as close as suggested.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Keying compensation allows the make to be delayed so that the
> start
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > rig's
> > > > > > keying envelope matches the keyer. The weight control is
> > different.
> > > > It
> > > > > > shortens
> > > > > > the spacing of characters, sort of runs them together if too
much
> > > weight
> > > > > is
> > > > > > set. Big
> > > > > > difference. These are heard in the Ten-Tec sidetones.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Was just suggesting a possible solution, but forget it OM, you
> > > > apparently
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > have the answers....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By the way, no offence taken or meant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 73 - Don VE1BN@eastlink.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gosh. just seems to do the job. ----- Original
Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>
> > > > > > To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 8:06 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Keying compensation? Delay? Sounds like a line from the K3
> manual.
> > I
> > > > > > suppose
> > > > > > > if he had a keyer he could crank up the weight but I'm not
> sure
> > > the
> > > > > ole
> > > > > > > boy owns one. He's a true, blue cw op! Bug only! BTW: That
> "keying
> > > > > > > compensation" is just another weight control. The only
> difference
> > in
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > and a regular weight control on a Curtis keyer is the fact
that
> it
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > affect the sidetone (which few people use anyway).
> > > > > > > Steve N4LQ
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Don Watters" <ve1bn@eastlink.ca>
> > > > > > > To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 6:19 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Steve -
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any way he can set the keying compensation? I found my
> Paragon
> > > II
> > > > > > needed
> > > > > > > > about 15 mS delay to give a smooth keying characteristic. No
> > > > shortened
> > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > or clicks. Worth a try if he can set it up.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 73 - Don, VE1BN@eastlink.ca
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>
> > > > > > > > To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 6:30 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: [TenTec] omni v short dits
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A friend of mine has an Omni V and he is trying to use a bug
> > > however
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > dits are being chopped so badly that he can't use it. I've
> never
> > > had
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > TenTec rig that chopped dits like this one. I've hear him on
> the
> > > air
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > even with his dit weight screwed to almost touching, he
sounds
> > > > > horrible.
> > > > > > > > It's like something is wrong in the keying circuit. Has
anyone
> > > > > > experienced
> > > > > > > > this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Steve N4LQ
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > TenTec mailing list
> > > > > > > > TenTec@contesting.com
> > > > > > > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > TenTec mailing list
> > > > > > > > TenTec@contesting.com
> > > > > > > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > TenTec mailing list
> > > > > > > TenTec@contesting.com
> > > > > > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > TenTec mailing list
> > > > > > TenTec@contesting.com
> > > > > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > TenTec mailing list
> > > > > TenTec@contesting.com
> > > > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > TenTec mailing list
> > > > TenTec@contesting.com
> > > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > TenTec mailing list
> > > TenTec@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|