[1000mp] ARRL testing of Clicks

Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:07:36 -0400

Unfortunately, Tom, most readers don't share our enthusiasm for test data.
That is why ARRL started creating the separate test-result reports. 

Having said that, though, I believe that things like good or bad keying, or
even transmit IMD results, should be discussed more thoroughly in the
running text.  That will probably have more of an impact that would
publishing a keying-sideband photo that has meaning to only a relatively
small subset of hamdom.  To do that, however, IMHO it is critical that it be
done as uniformly as possible.  A rig that has sharp transitions in its
keying waveform will have pretty high keying sidebands up and down the band,
and it is necessary to draw the "good,  better, best" lines in the sand and
uniformly apply them to the choice of words.  This has been the subject of a
few lively conversations in the Lab of late.

Over the years, I have seen some choices of words in the Product Reviews
that I would not have used.

73, 
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06111
Tel: 860-594-0318
Internet: [email protected]
Web: http://www.arrl.org/tis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Rauch [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 8:40 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [1000mp] ARRL testing of Clicks
> 
> 
> > What action did you intend, guys?  These have been included in the
> > expanded test-result reports starting in 2002.  I don't 
> think I could
> > talk the editor into routinely publishing them in the magazine.
> 
> Why not? A picture is worth an infinite number of "keying was 
> excellent" reports on rigs that have poor keying. 
> 
> Less warm fuzzy text, more measured facts is my vote!73, Tom W8JI
> [email protected] 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> List Moderator: Richard Lubash N1VXW
> 1000mp mailing list
> [email protected]
> To Change Options or Unsubscribe:
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/1000mp
> 