[CQ-Contest] Click, click, click...

Rich Hallman - N7TR n7tr at rnodx.org
Fri Feb 23 07:15:05 EST 2001

Are there any reports of this type of Receiver issue in the new FT-1000MP
Mark 5?


-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Green [mailto:dick.green at valley.net]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 12:08 AM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Click, click, click...

I think it's more likely that the MP receiver can't handle lots of strong
signals in the wide passband of the early stages. This could be true of
other "state-of-the-art" radios, too. Up until this weekend, my run radio
was an MP and I was often bothered by clicks. In ARRL DX CW, I did most of
my running on an FT-1000D. I hardly noticed clicks unless they were coming
from very loud stations right next to me (the stock Yaesu 500Hz filters
don't have the steepest skirts in the world.)

As for amps causing clicks or a "wide" signal, I guess I need a technical
refresher -- how does an unmodulated carried become non-linear, compressed
or flat-topped? My understanding is that backing off the loading helps
improve the linearity of SSB signals, but has nothing to do with CW. If the
transmitter is causing CW clicks, then its signal must not meet minimum
standards for spectral purity. I doubt that's the case with the MP or the

BTW, during the heavy morning runs, I was able to confirm the MP's AGC flaw
that makes it very hard to pick out stations in a pileup (despite the fact
that I have the INRAD AGC mod in my MP.) I had been running 10M pileups with
the 1000D. When the rate slowed I switched to running 15M pileups on the MP
and was amazed by how much more difficult it was to pick out calls. I
switched the radios so that I was running 15M on the 1000D, and was able to
pick out calls much more easily.

I need to do more comparison testing, but I'm coming to the conclusion that
the 1000D is a superior receiver for contesting (the ergonomics of the radio
sure beat the MP, too.)

73, Dick WC1M

CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

>From Steve, IK4WMH" <topdxer at tin.it  Fri Feb 23 09:27:47 2001
From: Steve, IK4WMH" <topdxer at tin.it (Steve, IK4WMH)
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:27:47 +0000
Subject: [CQ-Contest] ARRLDX CW - A new operating practice
Message-ID: <1957375460.20010223092747 at tin.it>

Hi everyone,

a few days before ARRL CW Contest I checked my logbook program
searching for unreplied qsl cards during the years.

I focused on those qsl cards sent via the bureau for contest qso's in
the years up to 1997, I believe a 4 years period is long enough to get
a qsl card via the bureau.

The result was a list of about 60 u.s. callsigns and a couple of
canadians who never replied to my qsl cards.

Then I created a new multiplier called QSL, and filled the ARRL 2001
CW contest log file with these callsigns on all bands, as if I already
worked all these guys and they all sent me this strange multiplier.

During the contest I was mainly doing S&P, and when I found a station
which was already in the log and marked with the QSL multiplier I
turned the knob.

A few of these are well known big multi-multi stations, so giving the
fact that some of them probably have 600+ mults worked, that I worked
on 3 bands, and that each qso is 3 points worth, those stations lost
5,000 up to 6,000 points.

I am not going to write callsigns, they know who they are.

Contesting is funny, receiving qsl cards after contest qso's is also

During the last weekend, while carefully avoiding to work those guys,
I had a lot of fun.

Whoever called it necking was a poor judge of anatomy.

           Steve, IK4WMH
           mailto:topdxer at tin.it

CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list