|Subject:||Re: [TenTec] QSK with QSK-5PC|
|Date:||Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:45:20 -0500|
From my meger experience, there is no difference in QSK capabilitywhen running an Omni 6 or an Omni 6 Plus or a Corsair II with or without a Titan 425. I say Titan 425 because that is the amp I had been using at the time I was doing QRQ. My own Omni 6 can not send CW at speeds over 68 wpm, due, according to Ten Tec, the lock time of the PLL. My statement was in fact, that I did not complain about that simply because the receiver in the Omni 6 was so far superior to anything I had owned before, I thought it was a good compromise for me. My Omni 6 Plus, once you put logic chip v1.02 back into it, will send good CW up to 75 wpm. My Corsair II, tested with an original Hercules 444 amplifier was tested, using an o'scope and sending the 'quick brown fox' message, at 166 wpm. The Icom IC-781, driving a Titan 425 will run QSK at speeds up to 120 wpm, which is as fast as I ever tested it.
Seperate this from the thread with Barry. Right now speed is not the main issue for me with an Orion. The major problem I have been having for the past 16 months is the Orion has failure modes when driving the Ten Tec Titan 3 in the Orion's Keying Loop. The Orion, the last time I tested mine, will run QSK at speeds almost up to 66 wpm. MY ORION AND MY TITAN 3, WHEN BEING DRIVEN BY THE ORION'S KEYING LOOP, AT NORMAL OPERATING SPEEDS, WILL NOT OPERATE FOR MORE THAN AN HOUR WITHOUT EITHER THE RCVR GOING OUT, OR THE ORION JUST STOP'S OUTPUTTING RF POWER. That is why, for this recent SS CW contest, I switched back to my Omni 6 Plus.
I don't believe there is a standard definition of QSK. The term was genrerated years ago when some folks with the NTS system was describing the desire to have recieve capability, while sending traffic, for obvious reasons. For me good QSK is when I can hear someone trying to break me while I'm sending, regardless of the QSO speed. It is Ten Tec, not me, that says they do not guarantee any of their transceivers to run QSK above 40 wpm.
As far as what I used to be able to do in terms of having a CW rag chew at high speeds, I really do not give a damn if you or anyone else believes that or not. I did it only because it was a fun and slightly different part of this hobby that I still enjoy. Having had two strokes, I do not have the ability to run CW over about 80 wpm any more, either sending it or copying it. I find running contest at normal rates of 22 to 30 wpm just as enjoyable as having my morning 65 wpm QSO's on 40m. The majority of my QSO's are in the 30 wpm range, but when I do find the hams that also enjoy high speed CW, up the speed goes. I am also in the process of helping two ex-CB'ers to get their code speed up over 10 wpm.
How can you question the true value of QSK if you don't work CW, Al? Don't you think it might be synomonous with VOX on SSB? Or maybe you don't even run VOX on SSB? If you run VOX on SSB Al, do you like to hear between syllables, or between words, or between sentenances?
This is just a hobby.
Tom - W4BQF
But of course, speed is the issue. Speed has always been the issue whenever the subject of QSK has come up on this reflector. Tommy is the one who insisted that at over 100 wpm-- I believe he once claimed 120 wpm to be exact-- he wishes to have QSK ability. He says that one of the Icom transceivers-- I believe it was Icom, correct me if I'm wrong-- can do it, and is the current 'gold standard' for QSK. He claims that above 68 wpm, certain Ten Tec transceivers can't do QSK and he complained about it.
Somebody else claimed that Ten Tec Omni's can't do QSK above 40 wpm or so. I think it was N4LQ.
Once I questioned the true value of QSK and I questioned how much it's really used to actually break in on someone during a ragchew, and I was greeted by complete and total silence from the reflector. I don't know what the silence meant, honestly.
Rather than turn this thread into an Orion bashing thread, Tommy, please tell us, once and for all, if speed is the issue or not.
All of which, I think, brings us back to that question, "What *is* full QSK?", which I think, Tommy, is a good one to ask.
On a somewhat different point, could someone tell me what is the difference in QSK behavior, if any, between running a Ten Tec transceiver (let's take an Omni VI as our example) barefoot versus running the same transceiver with a "QSK" Ten Tec amplifier in the keying loop? In other words, how much "QSK" does one give up after adding the amplifier? Thank you.
TenTec mailing list
_______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|