For you Anti-Scopes
Locked
1234
1234
 
|
Listening to CW in SSB mode certainly works to give you a wider window
but is inconvenient if you want to use CW functions like SPOT, PITCH, CWT, which aren't available while listening in SSB mode, and trying to keep in mind which mode you have selected at any given time... Is there some reason why the CW bandpass could not just be widened? 73, Drew AF2Z On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:08:27 -0800 (PST), Wes Stewart wrote: >Then listen in SSB mode. > >If you use the following, it's easy enough to change mode to CW if you hear something interesting: > > > > > >* AUTOMATIC CW VFO OFFSET ON MODE CHANGE: Allows >switching > ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by k3bu
Maybe a new class to enter?
Single Op, Assisted, and Luddites. I'd be in the later. 73, Bob K2TK ex KN2TKR & K2TKR On 2/20/2010 10:12 AM, [hidden email] wrote: >> Since Skimmer is nothing more than a more accurate and visual >> form of Telnet or Packet cluster those using it should submit logs in >> the assisted category just like those who use the DX clusters now >> are required to do. >> -- >> R. Kevin Stover >> ACØH >> >> > The assisted categories were created to capture the ASSISTANCE by SOMEONE else, another operator via other means, packet, telephone, internet. > > Skimmer is another GADGET in operator's shack, using his equipment, antennas etc. just like any other gadget in the shack. We are technical sport using technology gadgets and operator skills. Classifying gadget, skimmer as (human) assistant is the example of twisted logic. > Besides, skimmers would eleviate problem of packet pileups (which sucks) as individual skimmers, using individual antennas and setups would come across the "juicy" ones and flag them to operator, spreading the pileups. > Mybe we should go back and classify everything besides spark gap and hand key as "assistants"?? > > 73 Yuri, K3BU.us > > Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4
So the sponsoring organizations who decided that using the clusters puts
you into the assisted category are wrong? Skimmer uses another receiver, the band maps in the logging programs use either Telnet or Packet clusters spots for their data. Since Packet and Telnet clusters count as "assisted" why should Skimmer not? Just because it's the Ham Radio technology "soup de jour"? Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: > >> Since Skimmer is nothing more than a more accurate and visual form of >> Telnet or Packet cluster those using it should submit logs in the >> assisted category just like those who use the DX clusters now are >> required to do. >> > > That's a complete mischaracterization of CW Skimmer. > > CW skimmer is nothing more than a second receiver and multi-channel > CW decoder. It is no different conceptually than a scanner and > CW Get or the decoder in Writelog except it takes the process one > step further by providing the data in a way that it can be displayed > in a logging program "band map" or combined with a panadapter display. > Those capabilities have existed individually for many years and in > combination for several years in the digital modes. > > To call skimmer "assisted" is a farce. It completely twists the > definition of assisted which used to mean - assistance by another > person in making a QSO - and ignores more than 40 years in which > technology has replaced things often done by a "second operator." > > 73, > > ... Joe, W4TV > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [hidden email] >> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of R. Kevin Stover >> Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 8:00 AM >> To: Bob - W0GI >> Cc: [hidden email] >> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] For you Anti-Scopes >> >> >> >> >> Bob - W0GI wrote: >> >>> I realize that many run CW without a computer, and it may >>> >> be an unfair >> >>> advantage, but then so is an antenna up 100ft with a 1500W amp >>> competing against a poor ham with a dipole and 100W. >>> >>> The hams with the megabucks have the advantage no matter what. :>) >>> >>> >> There's the rub. >> >> The guy with the 100 ft tower running the 1500W is competing against >> others with similar setups and running the same power, NOT >> against the >> guy running 100W into a dipole. >> >> Since Skimmer is nothing more than a more accurate and visual form of >> Telnet or Packet cluster those using it should submit logs in the >> assisted category just like those who use the DX clusters now are >> required to do. >> >> >> -- >> R. Kevin Stover >> >> ACØH >> >> ______________________________________________________________ >> Elecraft mailing list >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm >> Post: mailto:[hidden email] >> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net >> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html >> > > > -- R. Kevin Stover ACØH ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4
Not to me it isn't. Skimmer allows you to do something you couldn't do yourself which is to listen simultaneously on other frequencies to detect needed points and multipliers. Other aids that have mentioned such as memory keyers or even computer decoding of the station you are working are not assistance because they don't allow you to do anything you couldn't do yourself, they are simply labour-saving devices that have no effect on the overall score of the competitor. I thought it had been ruled already that use of Skimmer counts as assistance? Perhaps that was just for the CQ contests.
Julian, G4ILO. K2 #392 K3 #222 KX3 #110
* G4ILO's Shack - http://www.g4ilo.com * KComm - http://www.g4ilo.com/kcomm.html * KTune - http://www.g4ilo.com/ktune.html |
|
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Julian, G4ILO" Date: Saturday, February 20, 2010 11:24 am Subject: Re: [Elecraft] For you Anti-Scopes To: [hidden email] > > > Joe Subich, W4TV-4 wrote: > > > > To call skimmer "assisted" is a farce. It completely twists > the definition of assisted which used to mean - assistance by > another person in making a QSO - and ignores more than 40 years in > which technology has replaced things often done by a "second > operator." > > > > > Not to me it isn't. Skimmer allows you to do something you > couldn't do yourself which is to listen simultaneously on other frequencies > to detect needed points and multipliers. > Not true, I can listen and scan other frequencies with second radio while CQing on the first one. I can use panadapter to watch for band openings and tune to the signals. In more crude form you can use scanning and CW decoder to "hunt". Skimmer just takes it to another level, just like computer logging to paper logging. The key here is ASSISTANCE by other persons via other means. Not the gadget and software in my shack, that is tool just like anything else in my shack. Ruling by CQ CC to put skimmer into assisted is the dumbest and contrary to logic. Yuri, K3BU.us > Other aids that have mentioned such as memory keyers or even computer > decoding of the station you are working are not assistance > because they > don't allow you to do anything you couldn't do yourself, they > are simply > labour-saving devices that have no effect on the overall score > of the > competitor. > > Julian, G4ILO Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by ac0h
Great conversation for the cq-contest mailing list...hope to see it
continued there. :-) On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 11:09 AM, R. Kevin Stover <[hidden email]> wrote: > So the sponsoring organizations who decided that using the clusters puts > you into the assisted category are wrong? > > Skimmer uses another receiver, the band maps in the logging programs use > either Telnet or Packet clusters spots for their data. Since Packet and > Telnet clusters count as "assisted" why should Skimmer not? Just because > it's the Ham Radio technology "soup de jour"? > > > Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: >> >>> Since Skimmer is nothing more than a more accurate and visual form of >>> Telnet or Packet cluster those using it should submit logs in the >>> assisted category just like those who use the DX clusters now are >>> required to do. >>> >> >> That's a complete mischaracterization of CW Skimmer. >> >> CW skimmer is nothing more than a second receiver and multi-channel >> CW decoder. It is no different conceptually than a scanner and >> CW Get or the decoder in Writelog except it takes the process one >> step further by providing the data in a way that it can be displayed >> in a logging program "band map" or combined with a panadapter display. >> Those capabilities have existed individually for many years and in >> combination for several years in the digital modes. >> >> To call skimmer "assisted" is a farce. It completely twists the >> definition of assisted which used to mean - assistance by another >> person in making a QSO - and ignores more than 40 years in which >> technology has replaced things often done by a "second operator." >> >> 73, >> >> ... Joe, W4TV >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [hidden email] >>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of R. Kevin Stover >>> Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 8:00 AM >>> To: Bob - W0GI >>> Cc: [hidden email] >>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] For you Anti-Scopes >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Bob - W0GI wrote: >>> >>>> I realize that many run CW without a computer, and it may >>>> >>> be an unfair >>> >>>> advantage, but then so is an antenna up 100ft with a 1500W amp >>>> competing against a poor ham with a dipole and 100W. >>>> >>>> The hams with the megabucks have the advantage no matter what. :>) >>>> >>>> >>> There's the rub. >>> >>> The guy with the 100 ft tower running the 1500W is competing against >>> others with similar setups and running the same power, NOT >>> against the >>> guy running 100W into a dipole. >>> >>> Since Skimmer is nothing more than a more accurate and visual form of >>> Telnet or Packet cluster those using it should submit logs in the >>> assisted category just like those who use the DX clusters now are >>> required to do. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> R. Kevin Stover >>> >>> ACØH >>> >>> ______________________________________________________________ >>> Elecraft mailing list >>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft >>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm >>> Post: mailto:[hidden email] >>> >>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net >>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html >>> >> >> >> > > -- > R. Kevin Stover > > ACØH > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by ac0h
> So the sponsoring organizations who decided that using the > clusters puts you into the assisted category are wrong? No, the clusters represent the input of ANOTHER OPERATOR. Just like a telephone call, or someone else setting at the next desk with a receiver. There is a FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE when another person is involved. > Skimmer uses another receiver, the band maps in the logging > programs use either Telnet or Packet clusters spots for their > data. Since Packet and Telnet clusters count as "assisted" > why should Skimmer not? Skimmer is not another PERSON. The difference between skimmer and Telnet or Packet is like the difference between computer logging/duping/Super Check Partial/History files and having a second operator setting beside you filling in the log, keeping the dupe sheet and correcting your copying. The difference is technology vs. ANOTHER PERSON. 73, ... Joe, W4TV > -----Original Message----- > From: R. Kevin Stover [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 11:10 AM > To: Joe Subich, W4TV > Cc: 'Bob - W0GI'; [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] For you Anti-Scopes > > > So the sponsoring organizations who decided that using the > clusters puts > you into the assisted category are wrong? > > Skimmer uses another receiver, the band maps in the logging > programs use > either Telnet or Packet clusters spots for their data. Since > Packet and > Telnet clusters count as "assisted" why should Skimmer not? > Just because > it's the Ham Radio technology "soup de jour"? > > > Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: > > > >> Since Skimmer is nothing more than a more accurate and > visual form of > >> Telnet or Packet cluster those using it should submit logs in the > >> assisted category just like those who use the DX clusters now are > >> required to do. > >> > > > > That's a complete mischaracterization of CW Skimmer. > > > > CW skimmer is nothing more than a second receiver and multi-channel > > CW decoder. It is no different conceptually than a scanner and > > CW Get or the decoder in Writelog except it takes the process one > > step further by providing the data in a way that it can be > displayed > > in a logging program "band map" or combined with a > panadapter display. > > Those capabilities have existed individually for many years and in > > combination for several years in the digital modes. > > > > To call skimmer "assisted" is a farce. It completely twists the > > definition of assisted which used to mean - assistance by another > > person in making a QSO - and ignores more than 40 years in which > > technology has replaced things often done by a "second operator." > > > > 73, > > > > ... Joe, W4TV > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [hidden email] > >> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of R. > Kevin Stover > >> Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 8:00 AM > >> To: Bob - W0GI > >> Cc: [hidden email] > >> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] For you Anti-Scopes > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Bob - W0GI wrote: > >> > >>> I realize that many run CW without a computer, and it may > >>> > >> be an unfair > >> > >>> advantage, but then so is an antenna up 100ft with a 1500W amp > >>> competing against a poor ham with a dipole and 100W. > >>> > >>> The hams with the megabucks have the advantage no matter what. :>) > >>> > >>> > >> There's the rub. > >> > >> The guy with the 100 ft tower running the 1500W is > competing against > >> others with similar setups and running the same power, NOT > >> against the > >> guy running 100W into a dipole. > >> > >> Since Skimmer is nothing more than a more accurate and > visual form of > >> Telnet or Packet cluster those using it should submit logs in the > >> assisted category just like those who use the DX clusters now are > >> required to do. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> R. Kevin Stover > >> > >> ACØH > >> > >> ______________________________________________________________ > >> Elecraft mailing list > >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > >> Post: mailto:[hidden email] > >> > >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > >> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > >> > > > > > > > > -- > R. Kevin Stover > > ACØH > ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Julian, G4ILO
> Not to me it isn't. Skimmer allows you to do something you > couldn't do yourself which is to listen simultaneously on > other frequencies to detect needed points and multipliers. No, top operators have operated SOnR for years to detect needed points/multipliers. Skimmer technology simply automates that in the same way that logging software with dupe checking/SCP/history files/etc. automated that part of the equation. > I thought it had been ruled already that use of Skimmer > counts as assistance? Perhaps that was just for the CQ > contests. That decision was forced on certain sponsors by some of the elite operators who did not want "mortals" to erode their SOnR advantages. The decision is WRONG and goes counter to all previous decisions concerning technological advances. 73, ... Joe, W4TV > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Julian, G4ILO > Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 11:24 AM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] For you Anti-Scopes > > > > > Joe Subich, W4TV-4 wrote: > > > > To call skimmer "assisted" is a farce. It completely twists the > > definition of assisted which used to mean - assistance by another > > person in making a QSO - and ignores more than 40 years in which > > technology has replaced things often done by a "second operator." > > > > > Not to me it isn't. Skimmer allows you to do something you > couldn't do yourself which is to listen simultaneously on > other frequencies to detect needed points and multipliers. > > Other aids that have mentioned such as memory keyers or even > computer decoding of the station you are working are not > assistance because they don't allow you to do anything you > couldn't do yourself, they are simply labour-saving devices > that have no effect on the overall score of the competitor. > > I thought it had been ruled already that use of Skimmer > counts as assistance? Perhaps that was just for the CQ contests. > > ----- > Julian, G4ILO. K2 #392 K3 #222. > * G4ILO's Shack - http://www.g4ilo.com > * KComm - http://www.g4ilo.com/kcomm.html > * KTune - http://www.g4ilo.com/ktune.html > > -- > View this message in context: > http://n2.nabble.com/For-you-Anti-Scopes-tp4583569p4603357.html > Sent from the [K3] mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
I have on order -- and hope to receive in about 3 weeks -- Elecraft's K144XV 2 meter internal transverter module for my K3. I'm beginning to look at available alternatives for an external 2 meter amplifier, and would appreciate any experience anyone on the list has with any of the following:
1. Communications Concepts 875A (10 watts in, nominal 75 watts out, $120 for a complete kit, $160 assembled) 2. Mirage B1018G (10 watts in, nominal 160 watts out, $350 new from some dealers) 3. Maha MH-A103 (5 watts in, nominal 50 watts out, several used units currently available on eBay under $100) 4. KLM PA 2-70BL (4 watts in, nominal 70 watts out, one used currently available on eBay, BIN of $100) Any other amps I should be considering? "Must have" criteria: will operate on 13.8VDC power, requires no more than 10 watts input to achieve maximum rated output, interface easily with K144XV. Nice to have criteria: compact, quiet, less than $400 street price. Max power output isn't all that critical to me; this will be used for VHF contesting, not EME, so I don't need or want a 1KW or 1.5KW tube-based amplifier. Based on my experience in VHF/UHF contesting, I think that either 75 or 150 watts out would be a big improvement over 10 watts, but that there wouldn't be all that much difference in results between 75 and 150 watts. Yes, I'd love to have 500 or so watts, but the price tag is too high for my budget at the moment, given what I need to add to my K3. Based on specs and price (that is, most watts output for the buck) I'm leaning toward the CC 875A kit, but I can't find any reviews that discuss its performance and reliability. It's uses a Motorola MRF247 MOSFET, and is based on a circuit design in Motorola's Application Note AN791. CC has added some features to the basic design published by Motorola, but the basic amp is what's described in AN791. I like the fact that it's compact (6 x 3 x 4.25"), and that it draws only 9 amps at maximum output. The cost per watt of output is $1.60 for the kit. The lack of a pre-amp doesn't seem too significant to me, given that the K144XV specs show -144 dB sensitivity (14 dB improvement over the main rig's -130 dB specs). Is anyone familiar with this product? The Mirage B1018G has a lot more output when driven by 10 watts in, and it includes a receive pre-amp with jumper-selectable gain ranging from 2.5 to 14 dB -- duplicative of the receive amplification in the K144XV -- but it's also more expensive, and a lot bigger and heavier (12 x 3 x 5.5, 5 lbs.) The cost per watt of output is $2.19 given the best dealer price I can find (which isnb't Mirage itself). Given that Mirage is owned by MFJ, I'm also a bit leery of construction quality and reliability. At full output this unit requires 30 amps, which is a minus factor for me. The amps/watt is about 1.5 times the power supply requirement of the 875A. The used units mentioned have their own attractions, but both are long out of production, and thus support would be zilch, so they are lower on my list, subject to input from this group. Comments and "user reports" welcome. Lew Phelps K6LMP Pasadena, CA DM04wd Elecraft K3-10 (160-6 meters, soon to be 160-2 meters, all modes) Yaesu FT-7800 (2m and 70 cm, 50 watts FM only) ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
«
Return to [K3]
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |