Ed what is being passed off in today's transceivers as QSK is actually
Semi-Breakin. Back in "the day" Full-Breakin was accomplished with separate
receivers and transmitters each with their own antenna. The only thing that had
to be switched was to chop the receiver front-end before the transmitter went
into conduction.There were no relays to clatter. The advent of high gain
antennas common to both brought with it the inherent switching problems. Before
pin diodes TR switching was done with tube units. Those TR Switches were
notorious for generating copious amounts of TVI. As SSB caught on the need for
break-in capability faded. It's use among better cw ops was prevalent. The
Russians seemed to take quite a liking to it. I haven't been on the East Coast
in many years so I don't know what has transpired in the last 20 years but when
I was there I remember running Russians on 20 cw and every time I keyed a dit
in a QSO with them they always would stop.
Bob
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Ed Swynar" <gswynar@durham.net>
> Hi Ron,
>
> Whilst I agree that QSK really CAN be advantageous in a pile-up situation, I
> personally find it to be EXTREMELY distracting, to the point of being an
> annoyance...
>
> When I monitor my signal, I like to do just that, i.e. monitor my
> sending/keying/spacing/etc.
>
> Judging by the many errors I hear being sent lately on the air --- numbers
> in call signs missing dots, dashes shy on a character, etc. etc. --- it
> seems obvious to me that I'm not the only victim of the distractions QSK
> brings with it...I think to-day's operators are far sloppier in their
> sending than those of, say, 25 years ago, when QSK may NOT have been as
> prevalent as it is to-day...
>
> Just my $0.02...
>
> ~73~ Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Spencer"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:40 PM
> Subject: [Amps] QSK or not
>
>
> > Alright! A good old pissing contest!
> >
> > While the statement that if you don't use QSK you are a LID is a bit over
> > the top (OK, well over the top) I'm surprised too at the number of DXers
> > that don't use it. How do I know that many do not? They are the ones that
> > keep calling even after the DX came back to them....or worse someone else.
> > We have all been in pile ups where someone will send their call 3 or 4
> times
> > without listening between them.
> >
> > I've been using QSK for many years (had an Alpha 76PA that my then
> neighbor
> > N6ND modified for QSK) and I will NEVER go back. You may have heard me in
> > pile ups. With QSK I can continue, with pretty good confidence, to call
> the
> > station knowing I haven't heard them come back to anyone yet. Many give up
> > early which gives me a nice relatively clear shot. Do I mess up? Of
> > course...but not as much as I would if I couldn't copy in between CW
> > elements to hear if the DX has come back.
> >
> > Now QSK offers little benefit if you are the station others are answering.
> > Who cares what happens during the time you pick out the station and call
> > them? Or during a contest where no one is going to continue to call once
> > you've answered a station. But for chasing DX either simplex or split I
> find
> > QSK to be a potent tool. One more way to beat the masses. So those of you
> > not yet using it, please continue that way. It gives me and the others
> using
> > QSK and edge.
> >
> > Ron N4XD
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.12/266 - Release Date: 2/21/2006
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Amps mailing list
> > Amps@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|