[Orion] ARRL

[Tommy]

Thanks for your comments Martin.

I still use my marble base McElroy and my 1916 Blue Racer, I just happen to
think QRQ is more fun...besides, truthfully, my bug fist stinks.

I don't believe any QRQ'er specified or told the ARRL lab how to run their
evaluation test on all amateur radios. I believe that test method was
generated by the technical folks operating the lab. I'm not pointing this
out as a QRQ'er to 'save CW proefficiency'. We understand that we are an
extreme and voiceless minority in every corner of this hobby.

The question is why would the ARRL propose regulations wherein some of the
best radios, by their own test, would be moved out of the CW bands. The real
question is what is the ARRL really proposing here with these regulations?

I have no intention to 'lead a bandwagon' of protest against the ARRL
proposal, that is, and should be, up to each individual ham. History has
shown that the majority of hams would rather not get involved in the process
but certainly spare no time in complaining about 'what was done to them'.

This really has nothing to do with QRQ Martin, it has to do only with what
is being done to OUR hobby by the ARRL.


Tommy

W4BQF

-----Original Message-----
From: orion-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:orion-bounces at contesting.com] On
Behalf Of Martin, AA6E
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 2:44 PM
To: orion
Subject: Re: [Orion] ARRL

Tom & QRQers,

If QRQ operation would be affected by the proposed "segregate by
bandwidth" rules, this needs to go to the ARRL directors and
management.  And I suggest you contact all the QRQers out there to do
the same.  I think your constructive comments will be heard.

The figures show that there are problems with some of the rigs that
don't shape QRQ CW properly -- particularly the Yaesu.  I don't think
you're saying that it's a good thing that the Mk V Field occupies 500
Hz at 60 wpm, especially if the Orion is so much better.  When we use
advanced radios with real 100-200 Hz selectivity, a (clicky?) 500 Hz
signal in the CW bands gets noticed, especially if he is also QRO.

I wouldn't write the regs to suit the badly behaved rigs out there.
If the Orion has the optimum engineering for QRQ (not sure about
that!), then maybe the new regs should use 250 Hz as the cutoff for
low-bandwidth operation.

By the way, how should CW bandwidth be measured?  A string of dits is
not a normal signal.  Normal text might be much better on average at
the -26 dB points.  If you average over 30 seconds, including letter
and word breaks, the numbers will be even better.

As a new QRS FISTS member, I salute the QRQers who send & receive the
old-fashioned way.  On the other hand if you're doing QRQ with
keyboard & software, I'm not sure why it shouldn't be treated like
PSK63 or other digital modes.

73 Martin AA6E