I would be very interested in trading rate sheets and other data with other ops in the ARRL CW test just completed, particularly those on the East coast of the U.S. My hope is that analysis may sugge
I guess I'm missing something. According to the Handbook, key clicks are a consequence of the rise and fall times of the transmitter's output, and that the tailoring of these times is a design choice
Would it be feasible to use the same test setup that ARRL uses for composite noise, but key the transceiver at a standard rate, both with and without a standard transmit/receive offset, and look for
My impression is that whatever the reason, losing the first character of a transmission, whether on transmit or on receive, is a declining problem. A few years ago, it seemed to be very common, but d
I'm not sure if this is what Bill meant, but having more of the refraction zone in darkness would result in lower absorption. And, of course, being one hop closer means a lower total path loss. That
Boy, this sure doesn't work for me. It also doesn't seem to me to make theoretical sense, particularly on CW. Why would the noise floor drop? What does work for me is to back off on the RF gain, keep
Randy, I think you are being too stringent here. Neither sponsor prohibits use of the Internet per se. ARRL prohibits "spotting assistance or nets." CQ prohibits "DX alerting assistance." To me looki
Just wait a few years, when we don't have the wide-open spaces of 10 and 15 to work with. 73, Pete N4ZR Contesting is! The World Contest Station Database is waiting for your input at http://www.qsl.n
Reading this statement made me uncomfortable at the start. If cranking in attenuator makes the clicks go away, then I would wonder whether they are being produced in the receiver. I know that my TS-9
In other N0AX rigs, Very good question. The ARRL Handbook points out that there is a correlation between the rise/fall times of the RF envelope, CW speed and intelligibility, with some degree of "har
Even for CW clicks? Also, some people have suggested that in modern radios this phenomenon may not be related to RF envelope rise-time, but rather to anomalous synthesizer behavior. Any thoughts abou
With his permission, I'm forwarding the following message I received today from Michael Tracy, KC1SX, of the ARRL Lab. I call your attention in particular to the expanded test report for the IC-756,
Like a lot of things, I suspect this is a matter of shadings, rather than black and white. When I'm running more or less in the clear, I feel confident relying on timing to identify who is calling me
It'd be interesting to know how W8JI's modified FT-1000D would fare in the same test. 73, Pete N4ZR Contesting is! The World Contest Station Database is waiting for your input at http://www.qsl.net/n
I don't know why Henry does this, but he's been doing it for years, and no, I'm sure he gets no personal benefit at all. Predictably, I find these posts useless with respect to the mags I already rec
I thought people might find the following weird factoid interesting. I send QSLs for every unique DX QSO -- that is, for a given station, every band-mode combination. Since moving to my present QTH i
copy of the >results. If I'm a casual contester and I don't subscribe to CQ, never even see the But how many of us subscribe to CQ only for the contest rules and results? 73, Pete N4ZR Contesting is!
The best way to identify a casual contester (really, really casual) is when he or she doesn't come up when you do a super check partial, using a recently updated data file. My impression is that 10-1
Ford raises many interesting questions. Let me just concentrate on one. Would it be a violation of CQ's copyright if someone were to buy a copy and then, perhaps 6 months later, transcribe the result
The numbers in the QST review are breathtaking, and now that Elecraft has released a 100-watt companion amp to go with the K2 I suspect it's only a matter of time. I'd want to try the ergonomics of s