Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+omni\s+v\s+short\s+dits\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+omni\s+v\s+short\s+dits\s*$/: 48 ]

Total 48 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits (score: 1): Author: Don Watters <ve1bn@eastlink.ca>; Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 10:45:36 -0300; Steve - You asked "How does the rig know it's "make" is being delayed by a keyer?" It's the reverse, the key closure is delayed to increase key-on time, or decrease keying-off time, by the amount of; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00788.html (17,748 bytes)
22. Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits (score: 1): Author: "Tommy" <aldermant@alltel.net>; Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 11:52:11 -0400; It must be Sunday because my brain cell just can not tell the difference between increasing the key-on time and decreasing the key-off time, and changing the weight ratio of a character. If you delay; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00789.html (20,604 bytes)
23. Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits (score: 1): Author: "Mike Hyder -N4NT-" <mike_n4nt@charter.net>; Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:32:54 -0400; Hi, Tom-- I've been reading this thread somewhat puzzled. The problem may be terminology. Here's what I think these folks are trying to say: 1. When the key closes, it brings the key line in the rig; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00790.html (23,722 bytes)
24. Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits (score: 1): Author: "Jim Miller WB5OXQ" <wb5oxq@grandecom.net>; Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 11:43:59 -0500; I am wondering why anyone is trying to make a radio send cw at speeds that cannot be coppied by ear by most people? If you just want to send text by keyboard, use some other digital method that works; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00791.html (26,473 bytes)
25. Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits (score: 1): Author: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>; Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:49:16 -0400; This is really so simple and the K3 propaganda has folks confused. Simply put. Some rigs chop dits. Your keyer makes a nice heavy dit and the rig shortens it. There is a cure....Increase the weight o; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00792.html (24,532 bytes)
26. Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits (score: 1): Author: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>; Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:50:44 -0400; Some things that "work better" don't always "feel better". itself or beer difference and can to close of time, my the at for the much Message -- that sounds anyone ___________________________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00793.html (28,899 bytes)
27. Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:17:24 -0500; Memory is, indeed, flaky. Perhaps your experience on Field Day was with an Omni VI or VI Plus. The Omni V does not have an internal keyer, and has only a single keying input -- an RCA connector mount; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00795.html (12,704 bytes)
28. Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits (score: 1): Author: Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 08:05:21 -1000; If you just want to send text by keyboard, use some other digital method that works better. There isn't any such thing. _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@cont; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00797.html (9,720 bytes)
29. RE: [TenTec] omni v short dits (score: 1): Author: Adam Farson <farson@shaw.ca>; Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 11:10:54 -0700; Hi Ken, Then why did such modes as SITOR with ARQ error-correction replace Morse radio-telegraphy on all point-to-point commercial radio-telegraph circuits decades ago? Cheers for now, 73, Adam VA7OJ; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00798.html (9,822 bytes)
30. Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits (score: 1): Author: Duane A Calvin <ac5aa@juno.com>; Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 13:23:22 -0500; That's only because the K1/K3 don't do weight properly. Weight should be the ratio between the dit and dah length, not "on vs off" time in each element. 73, Duane -- Duane Calvin, AC5AA Austin, Texas; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00799.html (26,521 bytes)
31. Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits (score: 1): Author: "Tommy" <aldermant@alltel.net>; Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 14:41:36 -0400; Well Jim, the reason for sending CW at speeds over 80 wpm is because there ARE hams who can copy it. And Jim, they do it by ear, simply because a code reader (or none that I know of) can copy that fa; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00800.html (29,926 bytes)
32. Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits (score: 1): Author: "Tommy" <aldermant@alltel.net>; Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 14:51:05 -0400; And which mode in ham radio is that operated under? Tom - W4BQF _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00801.html (10,734 bytes)
33. Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits (score: 1): Author: Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 08:54:31 -1000; Hi Adam, It depends on how you define "works better". If you define "works better" as: using the minimum bandwidth, getting through the noise better, being decodable using using just a receiver and a; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00802.html (11,512 bytes)
34. Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits (score: 1): Author: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>; Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 15:08:10 -0400; I beg to differ! With affection of course. That ratio concept didn't get started until recently when the JA's came out with it on their internal rig keyers and tried to pass it off as weighting. You; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00803.html (30,031 bytes)
35. Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits (score: 1): Author: Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 09:36:36 -1000; Duane A Calvin wrote: That's only because the K1/K3 don't do weight properly. Weight should be the ratio between the dit and dah length, not "on vs off" time in each element. 73, Duane I have always; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00806.html (10,508 bytes)
36. [TenTec] omni v short dits (score: 1): Author: "W9GE" <finger@goeaston.net>; Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 16:36:57 -0400; Steve: Is there another way? For me the old days are still here. 50% on an analog meter still works just fine. Been doing it that way for 40 years! And I use a WWII ohm meter issued to my dad (W9EIZ; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00812.html (8,537 bytes)
37. RE: [TenTec] omni v short dits (score: 1): Author: Adam Farson <farson@shaw.ca>; Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 14:52:24 -0700; Hi Ken, Precisely. The reason for my original post was that I felt a need to qualify "works better" a little more closely. The original statement that "there isn't any such thing" as a digital mode w; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00814.html (9,606 bytes)
38. RE: [TenTec] omni v short dits (score: 1): Author: Adam Farson <farson@shaw.ca>; Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 14:58:53 -0700; Hi Tom, I used the term "commercial" intentionally, to point out that there are indeed instances (not necessarily in amateur radio) where digital modes other than Morse "work better" than Morse in ra; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00815.html (9,146 bytes)
39. Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits (score: 1): Author: Duane A Calvin <ac5aa@juno.com>; Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 19:01:04 -0500; "Uncle." 73, Duane -- Duane Calvin, AC5AA Austin, Texas http://home.austin.rr.com/ac5aa _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesti; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00818.html (33,587 bytes)
40. Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits (score: 1): Author: "Tommy" <aldermant@alltel.net>; Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 21:30:08 -0400; Well thanks for your explanation Adam. For sure, if I had been living in a cave for the past sixty-five years, I would not have known about commercial applications of CW. I just didn't understand wha; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00824.html (10,043 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3]