In the past couple of years my copy speed has increased to the point where I'm able to have QSO’S at 25 wpm, but I still remember when 5 wpm was a struggle.
My keyer dates back to when morse code proficiency exams were still a thing to study for and my MFJ-493 keyer has a FCC Exam Simulator mode. I set the speed to 17 wpm with a Farnsworth spacing of 5 wpm and let it rip.
This was painfully slow to listen to, but a little over 2 years ago when I rebooted my Morse Code learning for using QRP I would have struggled to copy it. So I'm posting a video with the simulated exam and for those of you new to studying morse code or just feel stuck, you may wish to use this for practice.
I've included the real time text sent in the video so you can check yourself or see what you've missed.
If you're still working to copy 5wpm be encouraged that with practice your speed will improve.
Simulated Novice Proficiency Test
That's all for now... So lower your power and raise your expectations
72/73
Richard, AA4OO
Sometimes I needlessly struggle with a problem because I'm cheap.
My Vibroplex Vibrokeyer was manufactured in 1960. My Vibroplex Bug was manufactured in the mid 1970s. In both cases the once flexible, non-skid rubber feet have since turned to hardened rubber fossils. In order to use the keys without them skating all over the desk I employ a variety of non-skid solutions, except for the obvious.
For some reason I seem to have to move stuff on my desk all the time. I guess I'm never content and constantly reorganize the station and accessories. Inevitably I misplace a rubber mat or some rubberized shelf liner sticks out from under a key in an unsightly manner. In general it makes the station look shoddy.
2B Radio Parts, provide replacement parts for Bugs, paddles for various makes of keys. I ordered Replacement Vibroplex Bumpers (6 Bumper Pack). I wasn't aware the 'feet' were called 'bumpers', but there you have it... I have new rubber baby buggy bumpers for my bug and vibrokeyer.
The 6 bumper pack replaced the feet on both keys. In case you never noticed, many keys, including those made by Vibroplex, have 3 feet rather than 4. It keeps the key from rocking on a surface that isn't entirely level or flat.
Parts is Parts
The replacement feet... err... bumpers from 2B, fit fine. They were nearly an exact match for the old feet on the 1970s bug but were a smidge taller and slightly different design than those on the 1960 Vibrokeyer. The older key had a chambered, internal design that I'd guess had a bit more cushion back when it was new. 57 years later, the rubber foot is a brittle relic of its former self.
new bumper left, 1960 Vibrokeyer bumper right
new bumper left, 1960 Vibrokeyer bumper right
Ahhh, no more slip siding away
The old feet are simply held on by countersunk machine screws and the receiving holes in the new bumpers fit without a hitch.
Shod with new boots, shoes, feet, bumpers, whatever
My Vibroplex Bug has a more solid disposition as well now
The moral of the story is stop being cheap and buy some new feet!
That's all for now... So lower your power and raise your expectations P.S. Oh, speaking of which (lowering your power and raising expectations)... I was sending out my call on 7030 unsuccessfully a couple nights ago, for about 10 minutes. I was using my TenTec Century/21 at 5 watts QRP and getting lousy spots on RBN (6 to 9dB SNR). I decided to keep sending CQ a couple more minutes and was finally answered by S51MF, Franz in Slovenia, 4700 miles away. You just never know what your QRP signal is going to net you. 72/73 Richard, AA4OO http://hamradioqrp.com
Iambic mode keying occurs when you squeeze dual lever paddles, and then release both paddles simultaneously. If the keyer is in mode A, it will finish sending the current element (dit or dah), and then stop. If the keyer is in mode B, it will finish sending the current element, then send another element, and stop.
Electronic keyers provide Iambic modes to allow for fewer strokes while keying, thus improving keying efficiency
Mode B requires fewer strokes than Mode A
You can stop reading now, if you'd like. The remainder is just me prattling on.
Iambic?
Iambic modes were a mystery when I began learning the code. My first transceiver defaulted to Mode A and I had Bencher paddles so I got used to squeeze keying a bit but only in Mode A. When I got my TenTec Eagle, its internal keyer only supported Mode B and that totally screwed me up. I didn't know what was going on and thought something was wrong with the radio. I ended up using my old HamKeyer external keyer with the TenTec Eagle rather than figure out Iambic mode B. But, as with most things in this hobby, I eventually decided I wanted to understand what the Iambic modes were about and how to use them.
Iambic refers to a pattern of syllables, typically in a line of poetry. There are various "meters" that describe different syllabic patterns. Iambic is a pattern that has a short sound followed by a long sound, as in deDUM or ditDAH. If you've ever used a CW dual paddle key with an electronic keyer and squeeze the paddles you'll be greeted with ditDAH ditDAH ditDAH ditDAH ditDAH ... Aha! Iambic meter.
Iambic keying saves strokes. Comparing the number of strokes necessary to key all letters of the alphabet and all digits with different keys and keyers yields the following result, provided the operator is consistently squeezing with twin-lever keyers:
Unless you like to practice sending Walt Whitman poems, there's not much direct relationship between ham radio and poetry. But I've read CW operators referring to Iambic "paddles" or advertising an "Iambic paddle".... Well, I'll argue there's no such thing as an Iambic paddle because a paddle by itself whether it is a single lever paddle or dual lever cannot make an Iambic pattern on it's own. A paddle is only half a CW key, it needs a keyer, and the code in the keyer is what makes Iambic possible!
Whew! Alright, I got that off my chest. I'm not sure what get's me so worked up about this sort of "yes it matters" things... I blame being locked in the basement as a child, but that's fodder for another blog post...
Iambic keying requires a dual-lever paddle and an electronic keyer
Ok, back on topic; a dual lever paddlecan be used withan electronic electronic keyer, that supports Iambic mode(s). A single lever paddle when used with an electronic keyer cannot make use of Iambic mode, so called, squeeze keying modes. So when we talk about using a paddle with an electronic keyer for Iambic mode keying we are referring to a dual-lever paddle connected to an electronic keyer (or the electronic keyer circuit built into a transceiver).
A two lever paddle is required because the Iambic modes of the keyer are employed while both levers are pressed and released at the same time. What happens when both levers are released simultaneously depends on the Mode that the keyer is using.
A dual lever paddle
The Modes only matter when the paddles are squeezed and released together
The difference in the two modes only matters when you release both paddles simultaneously. So if you never release both paddles together, you won’t see a a difference.
Mode A -- The keyer will complete the element being sent (either a dit or a dah) when the paddles are released
Mode B -- The keyer sends an additional element when the paddles are released
You can avoid Iambic Modes altogether
You can avoid interaction of either Iambic mode if you release each paddle as it finishes its final element rather than releasing them together. For example with the letter "C", DAHditDAHdit, release the DAH paddle during the final DAH, and release the dit paddle during the final dit. For a letter ending in DAH like "A", ditDAH, release the dit paddle during the final dit, and then release the DAH paddle during the final DAH. This will produce the correct code whether the keyer is in Iambic mode A or B.
Video
The following video shows the different modes in action...
To Squeeze or Not to Squeeze? That is the question
Ok, I'll admit squeeze keying allows you to send kinda lazy, and it's cool when you demonstrate CW to someone how little motion you can use with paddles compared to a straight key. However, there are numerous articles out there for and against squeeze keying, and I think they both make good points but some proponents of each treat it as a somewhat religious doctrine and I just can't get that serious about it.
Personally I enjoy squeeze keying when I'm sending at 20 words per minute or less because it's relaxing and is a bit nerdy to let the keyer do a dit of extra work for me now and again (see what I did there). But I start making more mistakes as the speed increases past 23 wpm and I absolutely can't squeeze-key above 27 wpm. I have trouble using a dual paddle above 25wpm because I accidentally squeeze key when I shouldn't and Iambic stuff occurs accidentally. I could likely improve with practice, but higher speeds are easier for me with my Bug or a single paddle key so I haven't really tried to speed up using dual paddles. For now it's not much of an issue because I rarely QSO above 23wpm. I only key above 25wpm when working a DX station and it's such brief bursts that I just use my bug or send my "5NN TU dit dit" using a keyer macro.
History of Keyers and modes
The following excerpt is used by permission of Karl Fischer, DJ5IL. Karl has written an excellent article entitled "All about Squeeze-Keying" available in its entirety at:www.cq-cq.eu
In 1951 an electronic single-lever key was described1 which used 5 tubes to send self-completing dot- and dash-elements with automatic spacing between letters and words. But its continuously running time-base resulted in an uncontrollable beast so that the author himself wrote he does "not feel that any but the most feverish electronic key enthusiasts will wish to build one of these infernal, maddening machines", but nevertheless he hoped that the idea might provide an inspiration for further development.
John Kaye, W6SRY, accepted that challenge and came up with a rather ingenious design which he published2 as the Ultimatickey in QST magazine in 1953 . The circuit is based on 3 tubes and 7 relays and sticks to the basic idea of a continuously running time-base, which is the only weak spot of his design: pulses from the time-base trigger the generation of dot and dash-elements, and so they do not start immediately with the closure of a key contact but only with the next pulse. By addition of dot/dash-memories he avoids dropping of leading elements and transforms the beast into a beauty: once a contact of the singlelever key has been closed, that closure is retained by a memory-relay contact parallel with the key contact and the associated dot- or dash-element is properly generated as soon as the trigger pulse arrives, even if that key contact is open again or the opposite key contact is closed by then. The dot/dash-memory relays are reset and their contacts opened by the closing contacts of the associated dot/dash-generator relays. The dot/dash-memories are independent of each other and because a dot and dash often are rapidly stored together before keying starts, a sequencing circuit retains the proper order in which the dot/dash-generators are initiated.
This combination of independent dot/dash memories which not only avoid dropping of leading elements but also provide tremendous timing leeway with sequencing allows the storage not only of a single dot or dash but of a whole dot + dash or dash + dot sequence. While this initial design still used a single key lever, his next version3 which appeared in 1955 was the first twin-lever electronic keyer and ancestor of the modern squeeze-keyers which we use today, and it is this key’s action that gave the "ultimatic" mode its name. The circuit is based on 11 tubes and only one relay and the time-base, memory and sequencer are functionally identical to the first version. But because contrary to a single-lever both contacts of a twin-lever key can be closed at the same time, a seizure circuitry was added: whenever a lever makes contact, it seizes control and the subsequent elements correspond to that lever until the other lever makes contact or the lever is released.
While one lever contact is closed the twinlever Ultimatic generates a string of dot- or dash elements,
exactly like any single-lever keyer does. However, when the levers are squeezed so that both contacts are closed, it generates a string of elements from whichever lever was pressed last. So any closure of a lever contact guarantees at least one element of that type, generated in correct relationship to the order of closure. This key can be attacked as if it were a semi-automatic (bug) key or a single-lever electronic keyer or with any intermediate technique. And at that time it was considered the "ultimate" key because it sent perfect code without the need for the operator to send it perfectly, or in the words of W6SRY "a key that gives Klein output with Lake Erie input. It does everything for the operator
but spell and punctuate" (alluding to the characteristic "Lake Erie swing" of some bug operators).
The vast majority of today's electronic twinlever Morse code keyers operates in iambic mode, derived from the iambus which is a metrical foot in poetry with alternating short and long syllables like "dah-di-dah-di-dah". In 1967 Harry Gensler Jr., K8OCO, described5 his Iambimatic keying concept together with an adapter for the Hallicrafters HA-1 single-lever keyer in QST magazine. Pressing one
lever generates a string of dot- or dash-elements only, exactly as in ultimatic mode - but contrary to that, squeezing both levers generates a string of alternating dot- and dash-elements with the commencing element corresponding to the lever which was hit first. So basic iambic keying with self-completing dots and dashes can be generated by executing this simple set of instructions: poll both levers alternately, if the lever is pressed generate the corresponding element and continue polling. The iambic mode is most effective for characters with alternating elements. All characters of the alphabet, except for the "P" and "X", and all digits can be generated with less than three strokes. However, only the "C" needs less strokes than in ultimatic mode.
the Curtis-keyer (came to be called Mode A)
The first iambic keyer EK-38 by John Curtis, K6KU, which appeared on the market in 1969, already
extended that basic iambic logic by a dot-memory. As we already know, this feature was originally developed by W6SRY, but his very ambitious Ultimatic key did not gain too much popularity. Then it was reinvented by Dave Muir, W2YVO, who recognized the problem of dropping single embedded or final dots e.g. in letters like "K" or "G" because the operator is too quick (continuously running time-bases were outdated and hence dropping of leading elements was no more a problem) and who filled the gap between simple circuits and the Ultimatic with his Penultimatic single-lever electronic keyer described6 1962 in QST. And because it is more likely to press and release the short dot too early during the long dash than the long dash during the short dot, the first Curtis-keyer had a dot-memory only but no dash-memory exactly like the single-lever keyer by W2YVO. In 1973 John Curtis brought out the 8043 CMOS chip, the first integrated-circuit iambic keyer with dot-memory.
the Accu-keyer (came to be called Mode B)
The Accu-keyer by James Garrett, WB4VVF, featuring dot- and dash-memory as well as automatic
character spacing, was published7 in QST magazine shortly after John Curtis' 8043 chip appeared. The behaviour of the Accu-keyer can be described by the basic iambic set of instructions together with the following dot/dash-memory rule: if anytime during generation of an element the alternate lever was pressed, generate an extra alternate element. So neglecting the fact that the Accu-keyer has both dot and dash-memory, the only procedural difference is that it just remembers a state "pressed" of both levers while the Curtis-keyer remembers a change of state or a transient "from unpressed to pressed" of the dotlever during the generation of an opposite element, and if that happened both keyers generate an extra alternate element.
iambic type "A" and "B"
In 1975 the 8044 chip was introduced by John Curtis, an improved version of the 8043 with dot- and
dash-memory. At that time most telegraphy operators already used iambic keyers - but scarcely anybody in basic iambic mode without dot/dash-memory, because neither the Curtis-keyer nor the Accu-keyer allowed to disable that feature. So over the years two schools of iambic keying developed, differing only in the dot/dash-memory logic which the operators initially learned but rarely scrutinized or even changed: Curtis keyer and Accu-keyer. In light of that fact, Curtis named his own logic iambic type "A" and that of the Accu-keyer iambic type "B" and in 1986 he introduced
the 8044ABM chip which offered selectable "A" or "B" type of iambic keying.
references
1. Jack W. Herbstreit, W4JNX: "Automatic Spacing of Letters and Words for the Electronic Key", QST, April 1951, p. 46
2. John Kaye, W6SRY: "The 'Ultimatic' - The Key with a Memory", QST, February 1953, p. 11
3. John Kaye, W6SRY: "The All-Electronic 'Ultimatic' Keyer", QST, April 1955, p. 11
4. Alvin F. Kanada, K0MHU: "The 'Ultimatic' - Transistorized", QST, September 1920, p. 27
5. Harry Gensler Jr., K8OCO: "The 'Iambimatic' Concept", QST, January 1967, p. 18
6. Dave Muir, W2VYO: "The Penultimate Electronic Key", QST, March 1962, p. 15
Please leave a comment regarding you experience with squeeze-keying.
That's all for now.
So lower your power and raise your expectations...
The electronic keyer, for sending Morse code, came into into use in the late 1950's and early 1960's. Vibroplex introduced their first paddle key, the Vibrokeyer, in 1960.
1960 Vibroplex Vibrokeyer
The Vibrokeyer key looks like a stunted Vibroplex Bug. Vibroplex took the frame, pivot and lever mechanism straight from the Bug and simply did away with the sprung pendulum. After all, why wouldn't they? The Vibroplex Bug had been one of the best selling keys for sending Code for decades, and its design had barely changed since 1947. Vibroplex had a winner with the Bug.
But did that same design translate well to a key for use with an electronic keyer?
Vibrokeyer next to a Bug
The roots of the design
Vibroplex carried over the roots of their design principles, and two things stand out that make them different from other modern day keys designed for use with an electronic keyer... The finger-pieces and the non-symmetrical, left-right movement.
The ergonomic finger-piece
The tip of our thumb obviously does not reach as far as our index finger without contorting your hand, so why do most key manufacturers make finger-pieces that assumes your thumb reach is equal to your other fingers?
The Vibroplex finger-piece takes the shorter thumb into account by allowing the thumb to contact nearer the hand than the index finger. It just makes sense, right?
Non-symmetrical lever operation
The split, and unequal length design of the lever requires different forces from the DIT and the DAH side. Again, this is a carry over from the Bug, but it makes ergonomic sense. We employ more force from our thumb than our index finger when moving the paddle lever. It's simply the natural mechanics in the hand when it's in that position. So, the Vibrokeyer not only provides different spring pressure adjustments, but also makes the mechanics of the DIT side different from the DAH.
I don't know whether this was intentional or just making use of their existing Bug design, but in my opinion, the result makes the Vibrokeyer a better paddle with regard to the dynamics of our hand movements than keys with a symmetrical design. Our thumb and forefinger do not move symmetrically. The force and stroke length of the unequal lengths of the Vibrokeyer lever compliment our non-symmetric design. Maybe it's my imagination, because other keys allow for independent tension and distance adjustment but the Vibrokeyer just feels different. It feels more natural.
Non-symmetric split lever design
What's not to like?
The Vibrokeyer seems to check all the boxes, and patents have long since expired. So, why don't other modern keys copy this design? For one thing it's a single lever paddle... In the 1970s IAMBIC keyer circuitry became popular, sparking the surge of dual-lever paddles that took advantage of squeeze keying. Single lever paddles seemed to fall from grace for all but the QRQ crowd.
I own a work of art, dual-paddle key, from N3ZN that I enjoy using. But I admit that even with the N3ZN key on my desk, right next to my Bug, I would frequently choose the Bug. Part of it was the challenge and the anachronistic nature of the Bug, but now with the Vibrokeyer I find that the finger-piece and split bar design just seems to feel more natural and comfortable for my hand than a traditional dual paddle, symmetric design.
When Vibroplex created their first paddle-key, I think they got it right the first time
Vibroplex Vibrokeyer video
That's all for now
So lower your power and raise your expectations...
My friend Kurt (N4KJK) has loaned me his Vibroplex Original Deluxe Bug.
Shiny, Indeed!
Vibroplex Original Deluxe Bug with Vari-Speed
I've enjoyed my used Vibroplex Standard Bug made in the 1970's. That bug has really grown on me and it's now my preferred key for casual operation. But when I want to work operators who prefer speeds below 20wpm I either have to add a pile of magnets onto my already non-standard pendulum weight or switch to the straight key.
Vari-Speed to the rescue
The Vari-Speed, sold by Vibroplex, gives the bug an enhanced range down from its high-speed at 30+ WPM down to about 13 WPM.
The Vari-Speed accessory is affixed to the pendulum arm, near the middle, and moves the weight up onto the rotating arm of the Vari-Speed. To change speed, instead of moving the weight along the pendulum, the Vari-Speed arm carrying the re-located weight is pivoted toward front or back of the key. The added weight of the Vari-Speed attachment coupled with the ability to move the weight further to the rear is what allows the DIT speed to drop all the way down to 13 WPM.
Other options exist to slow down a bug this much but they usually involve extending the weight behind the bug through extension of the pendulum tube. I don't have room at my desk for that option, and additionally, the pendulum extensions don't allow for the bug to be returned to a QRQ speed without quite a bit of effort.
How does it perform?
In practice the Vari-Speed does its job. It allows the DIT speed to be slowed down a ton compared to other options that don't extend the pendulum arm.
However, there are some drawbacks... Changing speed now becomes a two handed operation. You can't loosen the nut holding the Vari-Speed arm and move it to a new position single-handedly (or at least I couldn't) so it requires reaching over the bug and using one hand to loosen-tighten the set screw while the other hand moves the Vari-Speed back and forth. This is a bit awkward and much slower that simply gripping the standard configured weight on a bug and sliding it forward or backward on the pendulum with one hand from the side.
The second issue, is the amount of mass added to the pendulum. It is considerable, even when the Vari-Speed is not being used to slow down DITS it makes operation feel quite different than a standard bug. I found that my inter-character timing suffered due to the extra mass and getting the DIT arm moving for initial DIT elements of a character. Admittedly, I've spent very little time with the Vari-Speed so I'm sure I would adapt, but I've had the opportunity to try about 6 different bugs at this point and none of them felt this strange for initiating the DITs.
Following is a video demonstrating the Vari-Speed.
This is a short one. I haven't found much time lately to enjoy the hobby, but the past few evenings I've been firing up the old Ten-Tec Century/21 and just listening to CW while I tend to other duties. Tonight, I managed to find time before dinner to have a brief ragchew with fellow SKCC member WV8DH (Dave in West Virginia) using my old rig. It reminded me how much I enjoy the sound of CW coming out of that radio.
I was too lazy to set the camera up to capture the QSO, but after the QSO I dropped down the band to find a good ragchew going on and grabbed my smartphone and shot a quick comparison of the CW tone presented by the 40 year old TenTec radio and my new, modern, Elecraft KX3.
After listening to the video I realize that a lot of wonderful sound, including harmonics are not captured by the microphone on the phone and can't be heard in the video. Nonetheless, I think you'll agree that the older rig has finer CW audio. It's certainly more pleasant to listen to for long stretches. The KX3 audio still wears me out if I operate more than an hour. I wrote a detailed post comparing the KX3 to the Ten-Tec Eagle last year that pointed out what I believe the culprit of the tainted audio on the KX3. The Eagle is presently off the desk and if anything the older Ten-Tec Century/21 sounds even better than the newer Ten-Tec Eagle.
But here's the brief, badly made smartphone video comparison of the C21 and the KX3...
Comparing CW tone from TenTec C21 to a modern Elecraft KX3
That's all for now. I'm going to be reviewing a nice bug that a friend has loaned me soon.
So are you working on your CW skills? How much are you on-the-air? Are you a casual operator or are you a CW-aholic?
There's a tool to help you track your on-air activity
The RBN (reverse beacon network) is a collection of reporting stations that run CW-Skimmers and report what they hear to the RBN network. It is a very useful tool to see where your signal is going and how strong you're being heard.
The RBN stores a lot of data and makes it freely available. One industrious amateur operator Fabian Kurz, DJ1YFK operates a website that presents all manner of useful historical information based on RBN data.
By entering your callsign in the URL or using the entry box on the page you can see your activity by day with a "heat map" look. Darker green means it heard your call more times that day. You can inspect any individual day to see what bands you were operating and also when.
That will show you activity for W1AW but enter your own call-sign to see your information. Now keep in mind that RBN only tracks you when you call CQ so if you operate mainly search and pounce (i.e. only answer others calls) you won't see a fair representation of your activity.
