To: | tentec@contesting.com |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [TenTec] QSK limits |
From: | Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@verizon.net> |
Reply-to: | tentec@contesting.com |
Date: | Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:33:30 -1000 |
List-post: | <mailto:tentec@contesting.com> |
Every rig design is different. Transceivers that operate QSK can only do
so within certain limits. I think everyone expects that there are
limits, and nobody should be surprised about this. It would be really
nice if the manufacturer specified the limits, and the rig lives up to
the manufacturers specifications. Perhaps as important as the limits, or
maybe more important for those who push the limits, is what the rig does
when approaching or exceeding the limits of QSK performance. Here is a list of some of the things we have read about on this reflector, that various QSK rigs do when pushed to their limits: The receive capability between elements is reduced to such short time periods that it is really not usable except during character spaces, or even word spaces. The duration of the transmitted RF code elements is uniformly truncated so that both the dits and dahs become "light". The duration of the transmitted RF code elements is truncated in a seemingly random way, sometimes even loosing dits altogether. For all of the above there are probably some rigs which continue to generate perfect sidetone, and some in which the sidetone does the same as the RF output, and still others in which the sidetone gets messed up in a different way from the RF output. There are also many rigs which do a pretty good job of QSK, except for the first dit or dah being shortened. Of course there are combinations of all of the above. My personal preference would be for the transmitted signal to remain as perfect as possible, with the receiving capability between elements having second priority. Having the transmitted signal adulterated in a somewhat random manner would be the least preferrable option. These are my preferences, and I would hope that most hams would have a similar preference for transmitted signal quality being the number one priority. I wonder if that is the case? It takes a little more effort to determine that the transmitted signal is funny, than it does to notice that you are no longer receiving between elements. You can tell that the receive is dropping out with a causual test in the radio store show room. You might not realize the transmitted signal is weird until you have had the rig at home for a while. I wonder if this plays into the manufactures choices when the rig is designed? DE N6KB
|
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [TenTec] ORION QRQ tests - schematics, Martin Ewing |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [TenTec] Re: TenTec QSK, Alfred Lorona |
Previous by Thread: | RE: [TenTec] FQR and QRQ, n4lq |
Next by Thread: | [TenTec] Re: TenTec QSK, Alfred Lorona |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |