Of course, Steve was stating the ultimate goal. Almost all
implementations are going to fall short of it, but should aim at it. I'm
in agreement with him. I enjoy conversational CW, and, even when working
DX, it's good to hear when the DX is busy shooing some QRM away and not
hearing me. So, I agree that hearing "between dits" at any speed I'm
going to be working (which is in the 45 wpm max range) is full QSK for
me. But, remember, the faster you can go and still hear, the better it
will be at slower speeds (i.e., the higher the liklihood that the
"receive duty cycle" is longer and more useful.) For whatever that's
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:24:14 -0700 <email@example.com> writes:
> > Next time you have a qso with another station just try
> > asking him a
> > question without ending the question with BK or a long call
> > exchange. Just
> > end it with a ? and STOP and wait. See what happens.
> > Eventually he will wake
> > up and realize he needs to do something like answer the question!
> > In our next article we will discuss the qualities of a good QSK
> > Hope this helps.73
> > Steve N4LQ
> Yes, Steve, this is immensely helpful to the readers of this list.
> I've always felt that the seventeen of us have been talking about
> seventeen radically different ideas of QSK, and you have definitely
> clarified your position for the group.
> According to your definition, the vast majority of this group, when
> they talk about QSK, isn't really talking about QSK. Not according
> to this definition.
> According to this definition, what transceiver/amp combination
> should I buy to attain this QSK nirvana? I want a rig, and an amp,
> that is as close to full duplex as you can get.
> By the way, the last time I actually broke in with a '?' was in
> about 1975. Haven't felt the need to do that since. :^)
> Al W6LX
> TenTec mailing list
Duane Calvin, AC5AA
TenTec mailing list