[1000mp] ARRL testing of Clicks

Tue, 2 Jul 2002 09:38:47 -0500

As an interested but not technically adept amateur, I must agree with Ed
that much of what I read here and in the ARRL reports is at least slightly
over my head. I know that puts me in the category of being susceptible to
the skewed verbalizations put into reports by the "authorities" we entrust.
So for that I am thankful and always interested in things that Tom , Ed and
others are saying with regard to technical details. I think what everyone
wants is a measurable, agreed on standard so that comparisons can be drawn
without having to adjust for variations in procedures, or criteria. Or as we
say in the contracting business.. let's compare apples to apples.

Tom Baugh
AE9B
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: "Price, Brennan, N4QX" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 9:07 AM
Subject: RE: [1000mp] ARRL testing of Clicks

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> List Moderator: Richard Lubash N1VXW
> 1000mp mailing list
> [email protected]
> To Change Options or Unsubscribe:
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/1000mp