[TenTec] "PTT CW" vs. PTT-controlled CW redux

[Richard Detweiler]

Scott:

Thank you for your post.

And thank you for listening.  Spriit is taken as intended.

You are right about the issue that if a modification is done to force the 
relays to TX and mute the audio,  It would require a manual switch to take 
out the PTT control and put the radio back into QSK mode.  Not a great idea 
but again, do-able.

It is sometimes hard to express what the real problem or functionality 
desired is.  Thus leading to confusion in terms.  Between us we have an 
understanding of what is desired.  We should probably come up with a better 
term for what is being described.  So a clarification of what is wanted and 
what can be done would simplify the discussions.

I'm not the spokesman for everyone,  but I can say what it is I'm looking 
for.  In CW Mode, when the PTT line is lowered or closed,  the antenna 
relays would go to TX position and the audio would be muted, that's all 
that's needed,  The CW key would then do the rest as normal.  When the PTT 
line is raised or opened,  the radio would revert back normal operation.  
Any Transmit operation would always 'override' the PTT line so if a change 
occured in the PTT and it went open and the transmitter was still sending a 
dit or a dah, the PTT line would have no effect until the tranmistter 
operation was finished.  If the PTT line opened and there was no transmit 
operation, then the antenna relays would revert to RX and the audio un-muted 
immediately.  If this is what MOX PTT is, then that may be a good term to 
use.

It would be great if it was something that could be field upgraded.

Again, Thanks for the discussion.

And appreciate you talking with me over the phone so many times.

73's
Rich
K5SF



I beleive the issue is the fatigue that comes from hearing the


>From: "Ten-Tec Inc. Amateur Radio Sales" <sales at tentec.com>
>Reply-To: tentec at contesting.com
>To: tentec at contesting.com
>Subject: [TenTec] "PTT CW" vs. PTT-controlled CW redux
>Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:14:27 -0500
>
>
>At 09:19 AM 2/27/04 -0600, you wrote:
>K5SF wrote:
>
>>I think the PTT is a similar issue.  I've heard of at least one contesting 
>>club move whole heartedly into the Orion, I've heard others shy away for 
>>lack of things important to them.  There is more than one web site for 
>>contesting that has said a tactic for reducing fatigue is to switch to PTT 
>>during low activity.  During High activity, the QSK is useful to catch the 
>>caller that hits just as you start to call CQ.  So this is a little 
>>different than ice cream, there are points about it both sides.  Does the 
>>PTT disqualify a rig?  now that's an ice cream choice.
>
>Richard, take this in the polite spirit intended:
>
>This is what makes it hard to discuss these issues - because the way this 
>is presented here
>is NOT the PTT issue that was being debated.  You can defeat the QSK in the 
>Orion,
>as-is and operate "PTT CW", just as you have described above.  Switching 
>back and
>forth from PTT to QSK when PTT -control- of CW is in place, is not an 
>option.  PTT
>-control- is used when other devices need the proper sequencing for 
>switching, and/or
>the operator wants to precisely control the start and stop of MOX CW 
>operation.
>
>This is completely different from the issue of PTT -control- of CW transmit 
>where it was
>suggested that Ten-Tec had no clue about engineering decisions vis-a-vis 
>the ham
>community's needs and that I personally didn't know anything about the 
>needs of the
>"serious" CW contest operator.   Which led to me blowing up on the 
>reflector about
>the issue - I should have kept my comments about what I think about the 
>station
>engineering of other contest operators to myself.   "PTT or semi-break in 
>CW" is
>something I personally use fairly often in contests.   PTT -control- of CW, 
>is not.
>
>Squeaky wheel gets the grease, though.  I insisted that PTT -control- of CW 
>was not
>something we were going to consider with the Orion AND that the engineering 
>decision
>to do so was the correct one.   It was still the correct engineering 
>decision - but we'll
>look into adding MOX PTT control of CW transmit as a future firmware 
>upgrade.
>Someone above me here at Ten-Tec put it to me very succinctly about this 
>issue in the
>last few weeks:   It's not about right, in this case.  Meaning, even though 
>it may not
>be "right", why not go ahead and put it in there?
>
>Good point.   I'll leave it at that.
>
>73
>Scott Robbins W4PA
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Ten-Tec, Inc., 1185 Dolly Parton Pkwy, Sevierville, TN 37862 USA
>   Contact Mon-Fri Eastern: Office/Tech (865) 453-7172 9 am-5 pm.
>   Repair (865) 428-0364 8-4.  Sales (800) 833-7373 9 am-5:30 pm.
>   Fax (865) 428-4483 24 hrs.  Visit us at <http://www.tentec.com>
>   Email:  New product sales/product info         sales at tentec.com
>              Service department                         service at tentec.com
>   While we make every effort to answer email in an expedient manner,
>   the telephone is a much more efficient tool for getting a quicker and
>   more complete answer to your inquiries.  Thanks!
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TenTec mailing list
>TenTec at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

_________________________________________________________________
Take off on a romantic weekend or a family adventure to these great U.S. 
locations. http://special.msn.com/local/hotdestinations.armx