[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] QSK

To: tentec@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TenTec] QSK
From: Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@verizon.net>
Reply-to: tentec@contesting.com
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:15:24 -1000
List-post: <mailto:tentec@contesting.com>

I think that is a great idea. When building any transceiver (or tx/rx pair) I would think that there would be an order of priorities for acheiving various operating capabilities. My preference would be that the transmitted CW RF output duration transmitted would be exactly the same as the key closure timing duration. Any delay between the key closure of the RF output ON would be compensated with an equal delay for key open to RF output OFF. That ought to happen for every dit and dah, including the first one, and at whatever speed. This in my opinion should be priority number one, and QSK performance should not come at the expense of a compromise in the transmitted signal. I like QSK, but I don't want a chopped or incorrectly spaced transmit signal in order to receive more between elements. Apparently some rig's designs compromise the keying to acheive "better" QSK. The operator of these rigs may hear between elements better, and not know his signal is chopped, until he has owned the rig long enough to get reports from people he QSOs. Using increased weighting from the keyer to make the transmitted signal correctly timed is going to shorten the interelement receive time anyway.


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.

TenTec mailing list

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