[1000mp] ARRL testing of Clicks

[Tom Rauch]

> The disappointing thing to me in the review was the look at the CW
> keying waveform, which seems to be absolutely no different from the
> clicky waveform that we're suffering with and modifying for in the
> 1000MP and the Mark V.
> 
> (Which the ARRL in its reviews of the earlier models referred to as
> "excellent keying characteristics".)

I always find it ironic that the ARRL tells us to use a waveshape 
that does have more clicks than needed (a single-pole shaped rise and 
fall, technology of 1950's and earlier), but at least they recommend 
a 5mS rise and fall. Despite what they recommend, they review rigs 
with very poor much-too-fast waveshape and report "excellent keying 
characteristics".
  
Hopefully the ARRL will drop the hyperbole and replace it with a 
keying bandwidth test to reviews. Anyone who works serious CW on 
crowded bands knows there are far too many clicky rigs on the air 
today! Even some HQ stations click worse than old cathode keyed rigs 
from the 50's, probably because they use rigs with "excellent keying 
characteristics".

OK guys, we are all smarter than that now, and know rigs don't have 
to click. Time to spend an extra 50 cents at the factory.

The ARRL could give meaningful reports through a simple test. They 
could send a modest speed string of dots, and use a peak storage 
spectrum analyzer that stores hundreds of sweeps in memory. They'd 
just need to sweep across the signal at a slow rate using high 
selectivity, and it would draw a picture of the attenuation with 
frequency.

That slope is independent of keying rate, as long as the speed is 
slow enough that the on-time allows the envelope to reach a steady-
state level even if just for an instant.

It isn't a difficult test to make, and could also be done with split 
VFO's to show bugs like the 775DSP Icom and some other rigs have with 
VCO problems when working split.
73, Tom W8JI
W8JI@contesting.com