[1000mp] ARRL testing of Clicks

[Kenneth D. Grimm, K4XL]

Ed said:
>> > I don't think I could
> > > talk the editor into routinely publishing them in the magazine.

Tom replied:
> > Why not? A picture is worth an infinite number of "keying was
> > excellent" reports on rigs that have poor keying.

And Ed responded:
> 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.

I could find no qualitative judgment about the CW operation of the Mark
V in the Nov. 2000 QST review.  Certainly, if you look at fig. 4, the
initial dit has a very sharp "on" transition leading one to suspect that
the rig might be "clicky," but nowhere in the review is this deficiency
addressed.  A single sentence added to the fig. 4 caption indicating as
much would have been somewhat helpful.  However, an additional photo of
the actual clicks produced by the rig would have been even more
enlightening.  To find the statement on page 12 of the extended report,
"This radio has excellent keying characteristics" is mind boggling!
Obviously, this subjective statement is misleading, if not downright
wrong.

While I respect the constraints imposed on the lab staff to include as
much useful information in a given page space, the obvious problems with
regard to subjectively describing "key clicks" cries out for a photo as
Tom suggests.  For whatever reason or reasons, some major manufacturers
are currently producing rigs that are causing severe problems for the
still sizable number of hams who contest and dx on cw.  From my
viewpoint, the ARRL Lab may be the only hope to change this.

73,
Ken K4XL
k4xl@arrl.net
*** BoatAnchor Manual Archive ***
On the web at http://bama.sbc.edu or
FTP site info: bama.sbc.edu login: anonymous p/w: youremailadr