Hi Mike,I agree that this is a problem that needs to be studied and solved.But
I question singling out contesters as the only operating group. What about
casual ops, DXers, digital ops ( incorrectly set up hardware/software)?There is
as much of a problem there as with contesting.73,Gary K9GS
-------- Original message --------From: Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> Date:
6/11/21 4:35 PM (GMT-05:00) To: PHILIP ALLARDICE via CQ-Contest
<cq-contest@contesting.com> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest]
Fwd: TX CW “splatter” - context -contests I certainly noticed a LOT of issues
with loud and wide key-clicks in the recent WPX CW contest. Some were as much
as 2-3 kHz away from the carrier. Now, at the risk of getting flamed and
knowing there are some that think the ARRL should keep their noses out of
things, the Board's Programs and Services Committee (PSC) has recognized the
transmitter/amplifier "cleanliness" problem, and is in the process of putting
together a committee, that will include well-known subject matter experts, to
develop an initiative to help with the situation. The initiative will be a
combination of working with radio and amplifier manufacturers, and the
contesting community, to set new transmit cleanliness standards, and have the
ARRL Lab test and certify new gear to ensure compliance to these standards.
Along with this is an education campaign to teach new contesters how to set
their equipment up to ensure a clean signal. In a way the ARRL Lab is already
working on this. Reference the recent June issue of QST, and the "Lab Notes"
side bar in the Yaesu FT-DX10 review on page 45. Even though I haven't spoken
with Ed Hare, W1RFI, in the lab yet, I was VERY glad to see that notation
there. It shows that the fast CW rise time issue is recognized by the lab as an
issue! The result was that the crew in the Lab worked with Yaesu change the CW
rise-time default setting to something slower to minimize clicks. A step in the
right direction!Now we need to take things to the next step and formalize it,
along with other transmitter parameters.I expect this to get this committee
formally kicked off after the July ARRL Board meeting. (Fire suit on) -
Comments? 73;MikeW7VO > On 06/11/2021 9:42 AM PHILIP ALLARDICE via
CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com> wrote:> > > This post is my response to
a thread on the Elecraft page, but it applies > to contesters. I am not a
technical expert. Is it possible that “hot switching > of an amp” causes
clicks? Or are there other drivers of CW spatter aside > from the well
documented causes? I am aware that some modern rigs > have adjustable
waveforms to reduce clicks.> > It took restraint to not identify repeat
offenders, some of whom are > often near the top of the MM or SO listings.> >
Thanks and 73.> > Begin forwarded message:> > > From: PHILIP ALLARDICE
<KT3Y@aol.com>> > Date: June 11, 2021 at 12:22:50 EDT> > To:
elecraft@mailman.qth.net> > Subject: TX CW “splatter” - context -contests> > >
> I am using the term CW splatter to cover clicks, phase noise, IMD > > and
other hallmarks of a wide signal.> >>> > >>> To me, the graphs presented by
K9YC are compelling. It is clear that a > >>> number of modern radios are
significantly “dirtier” than others, while a > >>> TS590, that currently
costs under $1500 at DXE, looks quite clean. The > >>> charts display TX
spectrum images from mid range transceivers to > >>> premium rigs (15 rigs
total) such as the K3, Flex and others. Take a > >>> look at
K9YC.com/TXnoise.pdf.> >>> > >>> A dirty TX rig has much less impact on casual
operating, or even most> >>> Dxing, as the band isn’t usually crowded. It is
another story in a contest > >>> as many offenders run HP with huge antennas.
They are LOUD. I have had > >>> to move many times when a loud, splattering CW
signal parks a few > >>> KHZ away.> >>> > >>> The cost of a clean TX is
insignificant compared to such station’s antenna, > >>> feedline and tower
investment- plus all the other peripherals such a BPFs.> >>> > >>> Anyone who
operates contests has heard such signals many times. > >>> It begs credulity
that owners who are serious competitors aren’t aware > >>> of the issue. But it
appears that little is done as most hams (including the > >>> log checkers) are
reluctant to press. Rather than ignore the issue, radio> >>> manufacturers
need to lose sales due to poor TX performance by hams > >>> voting with their
dollars. I am glad the ARRL now takes a more proactive > >>> role in
evaluating TX performance. > >>> > >>> I understand the argument that we need
to encourage activity, especially > >>> from modest stations. I could not agree
more, but in contests it is the loud> >>> stations with dirty signals -often
using big antennas- that affect other > >>> competitors adversely, not just
those nearby. > >>> > >>> It is time to place as much emphasis on a clean TX as
on impressive > >>> receiver specs. Some manufacturers, including Elecraft,
already have.> >>> > >>> The CW splatter problem is noticeable in EU and NA,
sometimes emanating > >>> from huge MM stations. I imagine that it occurs
worldwide, but the Asians are > >>> not generally that loud so their splatter
is buried in the noise.> >>> > >>> 73,> >>> Phil KT3Y- KP2M> >>> > >>> > >>> >
_______________________________________________> CQ-Contest mailing list>
CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest_______________________________________________CQ-Contest
mailing
listCQ-Contest@contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|