Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: CW keyer memory - What are your preferred entries?  (Read 7085 times)
M0LEP
Member

Posts: 488




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2017, 09:51:20 AM »

It's all pretty subjective. If you're in a Net or a pile-up you'll have several stations to compare one with another, and then maybe you could use nine (or seventeen, whatever), but most of the time three or four options are more than enough, and nine is overkill.
Logged
VK5EEE
Member

Posts: 1041




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2017, 10:45:30 AM »

I agree it's over kill and not required. I think the one I usually abuse is S9, I should probably give S8 more often and reserve 9 for, as intended, EXTREMELY strong signals :-) QSA is so much easier. You can also use a trick to help you: first, decide which of the QSA is correct:

1. scarcely perceptible
2. weak
3. fairly good
4. good
5. very good

And equate them to Amateur RST thus:

QSAS
11
23
35
47
59

But, if you find a signal is BETWEEN the earlier mentioned QSA definitions, or you are undecided between two of them, then:

QSAS
11
1/22
23
2/34
35
3/46
47
4/58
59

Edit: sorry tables don't work here! But I think it's still clear :-)
Logged

Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever

Support CW and join CW clubs. QTT: FIST#1124, HSC#1437, UFT#728, RCWC#982, SKCC#15007, CWOPS#1714, 30CW#1,
W7ASA
Member

Posts: 455




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2017, 12:49:25 PM »

I like simplicity and so tend to use QRK with friends.  The bottom line for us is: can you hear me well enough to copy what I am sending?   
Logged
VK5EEE
Member

Posts: 1041




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: August 30, 2017, 01:16:27 AM »

Indeed, the "Q" idea is a single digit, QRK. That's what's MOST important.
30m is in great shape as I write this, Europe booming in long path.
Logged

Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever

Support CW and join CW clubs. QTT: FIST#1124, HSC#1437, UFT#728, RCWC#982, SKCC#15007, CWOPS#1714, 30CW#1,
K6LO
Member

Posts: 263




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2017, 08:41:32 PM »

[quote author=W7ASA link=topic=116391.msg1016664#msg1016664 date=1503804937

Empty

I enjoy sending and receiving Morse. Using a memory to send my code would be like programming a robot to sip my single malt Scotch: a travesty.
[/quote]

Now THAT made my nightly read of eHam completely worthwhile.  Wink
Logged
KB2FCV
Member

Posts: 2558


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #20 on: September 19, 2017, 01:51:29 PM »

I don't use memories a lot.. most of the time I send everything by hand. I find that mostly I'll use them during dxpeditions when in pileups. I don't contest much, but sometimes I'll use a memory for a contest exchange so it will get adjusted as necessary

M1 KB2FCV
M2 I think a 599 TU but I usually send that by hand
M3 CQ CQ CQ DE KB2FCV KB2FCV K - I usually CQ by hand.. or mostly answer CQ's
M4 Some contest exchange which gets adjusted as needed
Logged
AC4RD
Member

Posts: 1446




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: September 21, 2017, 03:03:22 PM »

I enjoy sending and receiving Morse. Using a memory to send my code would be like programming a robot to sip my single malt Scotch: a travesty.

But you get a happy robot that way.   Wink   I actually depend on keyer memories these days; I have bad muscle tremors, and there are times when I can't send by hand--I just produce gibberish.  Even typing something on eham is slow and mistake-filled.   So if I want to enjoy a CW contest or DX, those memories let me keep having fun.  THey are NOT good, as mentioned, for ragchewing, but I never did much of that anyway.  So I admire your "no memories" attitude, but those memories are a big help for some of us.  :-)  Tnx 73!  -ken
Logged
W7ASA
Member

Posts: 455




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2017, 08:54:41 AM »

"happy robot..."   Grin


I do understand some of the health -vs- Morse issues, though thankfully mine have been fading with time.  You use what you have to continue and that's normal and laudable. Morse is elegant for reception by humans and at best; 'clumsy' for machines.


73 de Ray  ..._  ._
« Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 08:57:26 AM by W7ASA » Logged
AC4RD
Member

Posts: 1446




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2017, 09:22:32 AM »

I love the happy robot illustration!  :-)  I actually still COPY with brain and/or paper, my brain is holding up better than my musculoskeletal system.  :-)
Logged
K8AXW
Member

Posts: 6306




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2017, 09:52:47 PM »

Button #1 - 59

Button #2 - 59

Button #3 - 59

Button #4 - 59

Button #5 - QRZ ?
Logged
OZ8AGB
Member

Posts: 329




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: September 23, 2017, 04:02:44 AM »

59?  Huh
Logged
K8AXW
Member

Posts: 6306




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: September 24, 2017, 11:36:43 AM »

AGB:  59.....you know 5 - 9  .....typical signal report regardless of your signal strength. CW, 599.

It's a joke son.  Both my comment on the button settings and contest signal reports.
Logged
K7KBN
Member

Posts: 3473




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: September 28, 2017, 05:38:27 PM »

M0LEP said:

"Unless you've got a clear enough S-meter (and actually trust it), there's only so much signal strrength judging you can do by ear...".

Many of us first used receivers with no S-meters at all and we didn't have any problem telling S9 from S7, and since there was no "9", there was no "20 over 9".
« Last Edit: September 28, 2017, 05:41:41 PM by K7KBN » Logged

73
Pat K7KBN
CWO4 USNR Ret.
VK5EEE
Member

Posts: 1041




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: September 28, 2017, 07:46:54 PM »

Indeed, S meters are ONLY useful for comparison purposes, if you know what you are doing.

The RST system is NOT meant to be used with an S meter, never has been and never will be, you are wrong there M0LEP.

I have written extensively on this and explain why that is, although a simple look up of the ACTUAL RST table that should be sitting in front of less experienced operators who cannot remember it by heart, shows that it is NOT anything to do with S meter readings.

That said, if you know your rig well enough after a while you can correlate a relationship between the S meter reading and the ACTUAL R*S*T over time. But it is not usually linear, and, it may vary from band to band.

I get the impression by on air experience that ever FEWER hams actually give true RST reports because these LIDS just take a reading off their S meter. And consequently we end up with ridiculous reports such as 599 or worse 599 plus 10 and "pls rpt ur name", and 509, 519.

By definition, even on a completely quiet VHF or 10m frequency, 519 is not possible. You may never get a 219 on e.g. 40m, and you could easily get one on 10m, but you can never ever have a 519. It just proves that no one studies even the basics in ham radio now.

You do NOT have to use RST you could use QRK, QSA, or even MY S METER SHOWS X but IF you use RST then bloody well use it right!

Full explanations for those to whom this is news, see here:

http://www.vkcw.net/q
Logged

Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever

Support CW and join CW clubs. QTT: FIST#1124, HSC#1437, UFT#728, RCWC#982, SKCC#15007, CWOPS#1714, 30CW#1,
M0LEP
Member

Posts: 488




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2017, 10:26:10 AM »

The RST system is NOT meant to be used with an S meter, never has been and never will be, you are wrong there M0LEP.

I never said it was. What I said was that scale of five steps is plenty, and a scale from one to nine was overkill for something so subjective*1. Personally, I quite like the SINPO scale if you want to make useful HF signal comparisons, but I expect I'm in a small minority there, and even fewer folk would know how to use it than know how to use RST. Times change, equipment changes, and operating practices change. I expect folks still use RST more because it's sunk into the lingo than because it imparts any useful information. If they want accurate measures of their signal strength they'll probably gather data using some fancy new digital mode or other instead...

*1 I have no doubt that I'd dismiss as un-workable signals other folk would find easily readable (or vice-versa), even if we were listening to the signal in the same place under identical condidtions...
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!