[1000mp] ARRL testing of Clicks

[Tom Rauch]

> Somehow, I think I would like to have some definition of 'good' be
> discussed and more or less agreed upon. It would be nice if there is
> some existing rig that is classified as 'good'. 

Good is a word that should be avoided, because it is an emotional 
concept and will vary from person to person.

For example? 

If I worked 20 meters, operated when the band was not crowded, used 
small antennas, worked mostly modest strength signals, and had 
considerable site noise....almost any rig would be "good" to me.

On the other hand if worked 80 meters, had low site noise, big 
antennas, and operated when the band was crowded while trying to work 
weak signals life would be hell with the earlier example of "good".

This is an everyday fact of life, and one of the reasons why people 
disagree about the quality of rigs.

The FCC rules say we are NOT allowed to cause harmful interference 
from modulation products or clicks on adjacent frequencies, or have 
those products extend outside the band segment authorized for those 
emissions with our license class. They do NOT give a dB down, but 
simply require our radios do not click and bother people on adjacent 
frequencies.

Using that definition, I think -60dB at 500 Hz would be "acceptable" 
for CW, unless you are willing to move or shut down when someone near 
you is working a weak signal.

73, Tom W8JI
W8JI@contesting.com