[TenTec] QSK with QSK-5PC

[Tommy]

Deer Al,

>From my meger experience, there is no difference in QSK capability 
when running an Omni 6 or an Omni 6 Plus or a Corsair II with or 
without a Titan 425. I say Titan 425 because that is the amp I had 
been using at the time I was doing QRQ. My own Omni 6 can not send 
CW at speeds over 68 wpm, due, according to Ten Tec, the lock time 
of the PLL. My statement was in fact, that I did not complain about 
that simply because the receiver in the Omni 6 was so far superior 
to anything I had owned before, I thought it was a good compromise 
for me. My Omni 6 Plus, once you put logic chip v1.02 back into it, 
will send good CW up to 75 wpm. My Corsair II, tested with an 
original Hercules 444 amplifier was tested, using an o'scope and 
sending the 'quick brown fox' message, at 166 wpm. The Icom IC-781, 
driving a Titan 425 will run QSK at speeds up to 120 wpm, which is 
as fast as I ever tested it.

Seperate this from the thread with Barry. Right now speed is not the 
main issue for me with an Orion. The major problem I have been 
having for the past 16 months is the Orion has failure modes when 
driving the Ten Tec Titan 3 in the Orion's Keying Loop. The Orion, 
the last time I tested mine, will run QSK at speeds almost up to 66 
wpm. MY ORION AND MY TITAN 3, WHEN BEING DRIVEN BY THE ORION'S 
KEYING LOOP, AT NORMAL OPERATING SPEEDS, WILL NOT OPERATE FOR MORE 
THAN AN HOUR WITHOUT EITHER THE RCVR GOING OUT, OR THE ORION JUST 
STOP'S OUTPUTTING RF POWER. That is why, for this recent SS CW 
contest, I switched back to my Omni 6 Plus.

I don't believe there is a standard definition of QSK. The term was 
genrerated years ago when some folks with the NTS system was 
describing the desire to have recieve capability, while sending 
traffic, for obvious reasons. For me good QSK is when I can hear 
someone trying to break me while I'm sending, regardless of the QSO 
speed. It is Ten Tec, not me, that says they do not guarantee any of 
their transceivers to run QSK above 40 wpm.

As far as what I used to be able to do in terms of having a CW rag 
chew at high speeds, I really do not give a damn if you or anyone 
else believes that or not. I did it only because it was a fun and 
slightly different part  of this hobby that I still enjoy. Having 
had two strokes, I do not have the ability to run CW over about 80 
wpm any more, either sending it or copying it. I find running 
contest at normal rates of 22 to 30 wpm just as enjoyable as having 
my morning 65 wpm QSO's on 40m. The majority of my QSO's are in the 
30 wpm range, but when I do find the hams that also enjoy high speed 
CW, up the speed goes. I am also in the process of helping two 
ex-CB'ers to get their code speed up over 10 wpm.

How can you question the true value of QSK if you don't work CW, Al? 
Don't you think it might be synomonous with VOX on SSB? Or maybe you 
don't even run VOX on SSB? If you run VOX on SSB Al, do you like to 
hear between syllables, or between words, or between sentenances?

This is just a hobby.

Tom - W4BQF



But of course, speed is the issue. Speed has always been the issue 
whenever the subject of QSK has come up on this reflector. Tommy is 
the one who insisted that at over 100 wpm-- I believe he once 
claimed 120 wpm to be exact-- he wishes to have QSK ability. He says 
that one of the Icom transceivers-- I believe it was Icom, correct 
me if I'm wrong-- can do it, and is the current 'gold standard' for 
QSK. He claims that above 68 wpm, certain Ten Tec transceivers can't 
do QSK and he complained about it.

Somebody else claimed that Ten Tec Omni's can't do QSK above 40 wpm 
or so. I think it was N4LQ.

Once I questioned the true value of QSK and I questioned how much 
it's really used to actually break in on someone during a ragchew, 
and I was greeted by complete and total silence from the reflector. 
I don't know what the silence meant, honestly.

Rather than turn this thread into an Orion bashing thread, Tommy, 
please tell us, once and for all, if speed is the issue or not.

All of which, I think, brings us back to that question, "What *is* 
full QSK?", which I think, Tommy, is a good one to ask.

On a somewhat different point, could someone tell me what is the 
difference in QSK behavior, if any, between running a Ten Tec 
transceiver (let's take an Omni VI as our example) barefoot versus 
running the same transceiver with a "QSK" Ten Tec amplifier in the 
keying loop? In other words, how much "QSK" does one give up after 
adding the amplifier? Thank you.

Al W6LX







_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec