OH! I get it ... I think

[Ken Kopp-3]

>From reading the posts about "ducking" it sounds like
there are those of you who operate CW in a "full break-in"
mode where you hear between code elements.  Is this
the case?

If so, I can't envision how you tolerate the noise (!) and
understand why you'd want to lower the level of the din
between code elements.

Other than the obvious desire to hear a "BK" between
code elements, or to hear if the DX station in a pile-up
has answered someone other than you, what's the
reason for using this mode?

Thanks for any enlightenment ...

73! Ken Kopp - K0PP
     [hidden email]



Ken Kopp - K0PP
[hidden email]
or
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Darwin, Keith]

Yes, it is to manage the din when operating full break-in mode!

I use QSK because my CW timing gets messed up by semi break-in.  I find
myself waiting for the RX to open back up before I send the next word or
trying to rush things to prevent the change over.

I also send with bugs or straight keys so I need to truly hear what the
side tone is telling me or I'll end up with sloppy CW.  With a keyer, CW
is much easier to send so I can tolerate more RX noise.

- Keith N1AS -
- K3 711 -

-----Original Message-----

>From reading the posts about "ducking" it sounds like
there are those of you who operate CW in a "full break-in"
mode where you hear between code elements.  Is this the case?

If so, I can't envision how you tolerate the noise (!) and understand
why you'd want to lower the level of the din between code elements.

Other than the obvious desire to hear a "BK" between code elements, or
to hear if the DX station in a pile-up has answered someone other than
you, what's the reason for using this mode?

Thanks for any enlightenment ...

73! Ken Kopp - K0PP
     [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Alan Bloom]

On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 11:05, Ken Kopp wrote:

> Other than the obvious desire to hear a "BK" between
> code elements, or to hear if the DX station in a pile-up
> has answered someone other than you, what's the
> reason for using this mode?

I first started using full break-in many years ago when I was active in
the CW traffic nets.  You need QSK so you can hear the other station
break in for "fills".

But I soon became addicted to it for all my CW operating.  I feel like
I'm half-blind when I can't hear what is happening on the channel while
in transmit mode.

Al N1AL


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[ka5oai]

Darwin, Keith wrote:
> Yes, it is to manage the din when operating full break-in mode!
>
> I use QSK because my CW timing gets messed up by semi break-in.  I find
> myself waiting for the RX to open back up before I send the next word or
> trying to rush things to prevent the change over.
>
I tend to accomplish this by setting the delay such that, the spaces between
letters do not release the relay, but spacing between words does. I actually use
it as a method that helps me keep my spacings at the same for letters and words
through out the QSO.
ymmv

--
GB & 73
KA5OAI
Sam Morgan
Linux, the lifetime learning experience.
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Gary Smith]

I'm one who often uses full break-in. There's a lot of reasons to use
it but it requires certain aspirations depending on situation. For
instance, here are some pointed examples:

Say you're chasing DX, there are others chasing the same station at
the same time. Everybody calling needs to leave their call but the
only way you can tell who if anyone's call is being returned is to
hear it being returned to you. If you're calling, you can't hear what
is being returned. But if the DX is not returning a call then either
they haven't heard one call clearly, they are in the process of
entering a heard call in their log (and are about to transmit that
specific call) or you're calling from an area they do not wish to
cultivate and they heard you but you're not in their hunt.

So you persist in calling but need to listen to the DX stations
return call to whoever it is going to to know they have made a
decision as to who to call or that it's still in flux. If you do not
run full break-in then you become one of those QRMing people who call
on top of the DX station while they are transmitting. If you can't
hear the DX station through all the QRM then you shouldn't be calling
blindly hoping they will somehow hear your call and when the din
quiets down from the others realizing it's not their call being heard
and it is your call that you hear them calling.

The latter is possible but not probable. What is more probable is
they are calling someone else and you've been nothing involved but
QRM.

Assuming everyone ran full break-in and would listen for the DX
station in-between dits & dahs, then everybody would immediately stop
sending when the DX is transmitting and a whole lot more QSOs would
be made.


Another example is if you are in a 1:1 QSO and you have your RF gain
set so you hear nothing but your QSO partner, you don't hear all the
QRN in the background and lets say you converse at conversational
speed, if the other person misses something they can send a few dits
and you hear that and you know to stop your soliquy and let them
interrupt to ask whatever. Maybe they need to answer a phone or
spouse, whatever... it allows you to do as you would do on the phone
with someone and say in real time "Hold on a moment, I need to answer
a question or whatever.

If you're in semi or no break in mode, you can keep on sending an
opus that the other wishes you weren't sending but has no way to tell
you that.

FWIW, I love QSK that does not pop in-between characters!

Gary
KA1J

> >From reading the posts about "ducking" it sounds like
> there are those of you who operate CW in a "full break-in"
> mode where you hear between code elements.  Is this
> the case?
>
> If so, I can't envision how you tolerate the noise (!) and
> understand why you'd want to lower the level of the din
> between code elements.
>
> Other than the obvious desire to hear a "BK" between
> code elements, or to hear if the DX station in a pile-up
> has answered someone other than you, what's the
> reason for using this mode?
>
> Thanks for any enlightenment ...
>
> 73! Ken Kopp - K0PP
>      [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Bob Cunnings NW8L]

I can only speak for myself, but I adjust the K3's BW, AGC, RF gain
and AF gain so that the there isn't that much noise at all - so full
QSK is not painful at all, but actually quite pleasant. I suppose such
ducking of the audio could be desirable when when gains are turned way
up in an attempt to copy a very weak signal.

Bob NW8L

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Ken Kopp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >From reading the posts about "ducking" it sounds like
> there are those of you who operate CW in a "full break-in"
> mode where you hear between code elements.  Is this
> the case?
>
> If so, I can't envision how you tolerate the noise (!) and
> understand why you'd want to lower the level of the din
> between code elements.
>
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Guy, K2AV]

I'm not sure what the "din" is, other than what is happening on the
frequency I am transmitting on. If you don't want to hear the frequency
between dits, why are you running QSK? Set the hang time to a character or
word space at your speed (easily done with most contesting programs or
hardware) and enjoy the quiet. Also turn up the MON setting to where it is
the same level as signal in your bandpass, and get your AGC contants to
where you are confortable with the audio levels.

When I'm operating QSK, I don't want the K3 to change bandwidth, level or
where the AGC was when I hit the key. I operate QSK because I WANT to hear
my frequency between dits.  What I am listening to within the RX bandwidth
is hardly knowable by the K3, nor can it know when I am done.  I
specifically WANT the "din" between the bits. The "din" in between is why I
turned on QSK.

73, Guy


----- Original Message -----
From: "Darwin, Keith" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] OH! I get it ... I think

> Yes, it is to manage the din when operating full break-in mode!
>
> I use QSK because my CW timing gets messed up by semi break-in.  I find
> myself waiting for the RX to open back up before I send the next word or
> trying to rush things to prevent the change over.
>
> I also send with bugs or straight keys so I need to truly hear what the
> side tone is telling me or I'll end up with sloppy CW.  With a keyer, CW
> is much easier to send so I can tolerate more RX noise.
>
> - Keith N1AS -
> - K3 711 -
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>>From reading the posts about "ducking" it sounds like
> there are those of you who operate CW in a "full break-in"
> mode where you hear between code elements.  Is this the case?
>
> If so, I can't envision how you tolerate the noise (!) and understand
> why you'd want to lower the level of the din between code elements.
>
> Other than the obvious desire to hear a "BK" between code elements, or
> to hear if the DX station in a pile-up has answered someone other than
> you, what's the reason for using this mode?
>
> Thanks for any enlightenment ...
>
> 73! Ken Kopp - K0PP
>     [hidden email]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[K7TV]

Guy,

Forgive me for putting bandwidth change into the already complex argument,
but since you mentioned it, here is further explanation of my view on that:

When I'm operating QSK I want to hear my frequency between dits
but *only my* frequency. All too easily I make transmission errors
if the radio doesn't do a perfect emulation of a code practice oscillator.
Cranking down the receive bandwidth to 100 Hz during transmission
often brings something close to that effect. In all but the shortest QSO's
I routinely do this manually. It would be great if it could be done
automatically.

If the other station in the qso breaks into my transmission then I welcome
it, even with the stumbling on my part that is likely to result. If I hear
another
station nearby *while I am transmitting* I see it as a nuisance.

During reception things are a bit different. On the one hand, my copy
will be better if the bandwidth is narrow. On the other hand, another
station may legitimately be calling me slightly off frequency. I am less
embarrassed to miss a character during reception than stumbling
during transmission. Probably in a typical situation the ideal receive
bandwidth during reception is wider than during transmission,
assuming that a small bandwidth is used as the tool of choice to
remove unwanted din during transmission (which does not include
what may be coming from the other station in the qso).

73,
Erik K7TV

> When I'm operating QSK, I don't want the K3 to change bandwidth, level or
> where the AGC was when I hit the key. I operate QSK because I WANT to hear
> my frequency between dits.  What I am listening to within the RX bandwidth
> is hardly knowable by the K3, nor can it know when I am done.  I
> specifically WANT the "din" between the bits. The "din" in between is why
> I
> turned on QSK.
>
> 73, Guy


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com