[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] QSK

To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] QSK
From: "Tommy" <aldermant@alltel.net>
Reply-to: tentec@contesting.com
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 06:13:00 -0500
List-post: <mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
Hmmmm....good point Paul.

But that brings up the question, if you have proper 3:1 element lengths, why would you have to fiddle with the weighting?

Or , is it really correct that the 3:1 ratio is proper/correct elements? Isn't that a 'spec' that, like QSK, was developed back in the mechanical key era also?

To me, sidetone circuitry in just about every rig is designed completely incorrect. I think in most rigs, sidetone is generated by the keying pulses going TO the xmtr stages. I think it should be developed by the wave shape sampled in the SWR circuit. That way you would have a more true representation of how your own signal sounded. As it is now, you really have no true representation in sidetone, of how your signal actually sounds.

Any thoughts?

Tom - W4BQF

----- Original Message ----- From: "PHILLIP C FLORINE" <flor0045@metnet.edu>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 1:46 AM
Subject: [TenTec] QSK

In addition to all the requirements discussed previously for (good) QSK,
how about transmitted element lengths being proper (3:1) whether using an
internal or external keyer without having to fiddle with weighting or other
controls? The sidetone would, of course, reflect what's being transmitted.

No choppy CW allowed- at any speed.



TenTec mailing list

_______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>