Learning the characters of Morse Code is just the start. Letters make up the words, but words make up the language.
I practice copying random words in morse code regularly. Along with actually getting on the air and having QSOs it's a crucial to learn common words in order to be comfortable copying ragchews, outside of standard exchanges.
Videos
The following videos contain the top 100 English words along with the text of the words at different speeds up to 38 wpm. At the higher speeds you will find that the characters disappear and you begin to only hear words.
I hope you find this instructive.
15 WPM
20 WPM
25 WPM
38 WPM -- Rock On!
That's all for now...
So lower your power and raise your expectations
72/73
Richard AA4OO
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.
I read various forums and blogs for the same reason you might be reading this one. I'm always interested in learning more or trying to answer someone's question in a forum, etc. etc.
A recent forum post went something like...
"CW straight key prices are so obscenely inflated that I lost interest in learning CW..."
I'll admit that I've been shocked at the prices of some CW keys but to say that because some CW straight key prices are high that would make me lose interest in learning seems a bit non-sequitur. I'm not going to debate the logic/illogic of not learning CW due to the high cost of straight keys but I would like to explore the current cost of straight keys. So are CW keys really that expensive? Let's have a look...
Morse Express offers a good selection of keys and I've had good experience purchasing from them. At the time of this writing they offer an AMECO straight key for $12.50, the Hi-Mound model 705 for $50 and a Nye Viking Speed-X for $85. Prices can certainly go up from there... A Begali Spark (available from Begali) is approximately $150 and more custom keys and materials can go up and up and up.
There may be less expensive new straight keys than the AMECO $12.50 model but let's start there.
So from a 1958 radio shack advertisement we see:
1958 Radio Shack ad
The 99 cent "Skillman 'jr' Speed Key" appears to be equivalent to the AMECO AM-K1 advertised at MorseX site. What is 99c in today's money... about $8.50 So yes by that measure the absolute cheapest key you could buy from Radio shack in 1958 would cost only 75% of what you'd pay today. What about the next model up, the "Deluxe High Speed Brass Key" is probably equivalent to a Nye Viking Speed-X. So $2.95 versus $85... Hmmm inflation says the Nye Viking should cost $25 based on that comparison. Maybe the Speed-X is better made than the 1958 Radio Shack "Deluxe High Speed Brass Key" but probably not 3-4 times better.
My goodness, straight key manufacturers are gouging us aren't they?
So it would seem straight key prices are significantly higher now than in the 1950s Why is that?
Could it be the cost of manufacturing...
As quantity of production increases from Q to Q2, the average cost of each unit decreases from C to C1. LRAC is the long run average cost (Source Wikipedia)
There was a far higher demand for keys in the past than at present
So according to this 1958 FCC Report there were 180,738 licensed amateur radio operators in the USA in 1958. ALL of those operators were required to both learn morse code and were originally restricted to only operate CW until a license upgrade occurred. Even after that I'd argue (and I'd like to hear from operators from that era) that CW continued to be a far more common mode of communication for hams than phone modes at the time.
So guess what? All these operators were purchasing morse code keys. I don't think the electronic keyer had come into common use at the time so they would be buying straight keys or bugs of some type (not discounting cooties but hey let's admit using a cootie takes a special kind of strange).
Fast forward to the PRESENT:
Morse code is not required to obtain a FCC amateur radio license.
There are ~744000 licensed hams but ~373000 are Technician class; so although they might be exercising CW in their limited band portions I think we'd all agree that's highly unlikely. So that leaves us with 371,000 operators that could be operating CW. Seems like a big number.
My personal anecdotal experience from visiting local Amateur radio clubs tells me that less than 1 in 20 licenced operators regularly use CW and of those the majority use electronic keyers with paddles or operate with a keyboard, rather than using a mechanical key.
The SKCC is a club/association for straight key and mechanical key operators. From what I can tell it is the most popular CW related club at present. As of this writing it has 17385 members. Since all these members are using mechanical keys that's a good gauge of active straight key operators at present.
Current market for straight keys
Ok making a semi-sketchy educated guess out of this combination of my assumption filled math moderated by anecdotal experience and one actual real number; I'm guessing there are 18,000 active mechanical key operators at present in 2017 compared to 180,738 in 1958 (not taking into account other potential buyers straight keys outside of amateur radio).
There is likely less than 10% of the 1958 market for straight keys now. Add to this that's it's likely easier to obtain a used key today from an auction or ham swap sites that further dilutes sales potential of new straight keys.
So with greater than 90% market erosion we look back up at the cost of manufacturing chart and see why straight keys cost so much now compared to when you were an aspiring novice back in the 1950s.
What is a CW key worth?
I've mentioned this in other articles but
Of every item in your shack, what are you going to actually touch as much as your CW key?
You will physically interact more with you CW key than any piece of equipment you own. It's kinda like comfortable shoes. Sure you can buy a pair of $10 flip flops or you could have $3,000 custom made Italian shoes. Somewhere in between lies something that's both functional, comfortable and durable.
The same is true for CW keys. You could buy the $12.50 AMECO plastic key or a $540 Begali sideswiper. Both work, but what you can be happy with likely lies somewhere in-between. Folks will happily spend big bucks for a ham radio microphone to achieve that "full fidelity sound" (in ahem 2.8kHz bandwidth) but they balk at spending over $100 for a CW key.
Seems to me that keys aren't getting the love they deserve.
So before you decide that you won't learn CW until the price of Morse Code Straight Keys comes down from today's obscene prices, consider what it is you're actually buying and why they just might cost more today than when you were a lad and all automobiles had to be hand cranked.
I haven't used the 1Watter in a while so I thought I'd pull it off the shelf and hook it up for a QSO. The 40m band was in pretty good shape but the frequencies covered by my XTAL controlled 1Watter are pretty limited and trying to find an open frequency was tough.
I received a response to my call from N1WHT up in CT, but the station was a little off frequency and the 1Watter doesn't have a RIT so I had to change frequency to bring him into my passband. Then another much stronger station came in right beside us which overwhelmed the 1Watter AGC when I sent my final response. I've tried a number of things to correct the AGC issue on my radio and haven't had success. I've just learned to deal with having the audio from my sidetone drop out when sending in such circumstances.
This was a rather hard fought QSO. I used my Elecraft AF-1 audio filter kit to help eliminate the stronger station on receive but the passband was so narrow that I had to turn it off to hear some of my sidetone when sending.
So I made a contact but it wasn't the most elegant or pleasant QSO of the evening. In any event, it's communication so soldier on.
I was listening to CW stations tonight through my SDR having extended QSOs on 40m between 7015 and 7035. There seemed to be a good number of stations sending between 24 wpm and 28 wpm, maybe a bit faster. The signals were strong and I had good signal to noise on most of the conversations. 24-28wpm is generally faster than I'm able to comfortably copy but I use these listening sessions to improve my head copy skills.
As I listened I realized that I could copy some stations nearly 100% while with others sending at about the same speed I just could not head copy no matter how hard I concentrated. One particular QSO had two stations operating at the same speed and about the same SNR. I'd guess they were operating about 25wpm. One of the stations I copied easily without thinking much about it while the other I just caught a word here or there. The difference was their space between words. Not necessarily space between characters but between the words. I started paying closer attention to the station I could copy clearly and I could count about a one second pause between each of his words. The other station was running one word into the next.
Then I started switching back and forth between a number of QSOs and I recognized that my comprehension was very dependent on word spacing. I could even copy bug operators who had their DITS flying over 30wpm with 20wpm spaces clearly as long as they paused between words.
Silence is golden
The artist Sting is a famous bass player. I am also a bass player, certainly not a famous one, but I follow bass players and enjoy their different styles.
For me, the sound is only half of music - the space between the notes is also vitally important...
Is space the final frontier in being able to copy CW? Why is it that some CW operators, and I'll venture to say most CW operators don't put adequate space between their words. CW is not a fast mode of communication so why not give each word the importance it deserves? Why be in a rush?
I'm going to strive to put more space between my words in my next QSOs. It may just make copy for the other operator a bit easier and rather than them bailing on you after an exchange or two you may just chat away for an hour because they enjoy the solid comprehension of every word you send. If you work me and don't hear me putting an adequate pause between my words, call me out on it.
That's all for now
So lower your power, and pause before your next word, then raise your expectations
Gasp! My blog is called "HamRadioQRP"... so what sort of heresy would lead me to post a topic on using more than 5 watts...
Will I have to turn in my QRP card?
I bit the expensive bullet and bought a used PXA100 amp for my KX3 this past week. There, I've got it off my chest. I've come out of the closet. Go ahead and unfriend me and unsubscribe from my blog...
Normal Elecraft KX3 -- Notice the RF scale goes from 1w up to 12 watts
Elecraft KX3 with a PXA100 -- note the RF scale now goes up to 110 watts
OK, for those still reading...
This is my first time into the bottom of a solar cycle running QRP
If you've been operating for the past 6 months I'm sure you've noticed the band conditions have been getting pretty poor, and while I continue to try and make contacts and have ragchews using QRP power levels sometimes I feel bad for the other fella who is not QRP struggling to copy me.
I enjoy the challenge of making contacts at QRP levels but I also enjoy exchanging more than my call and an RST. When the other station gives me a 559 or worse, or the QSB is getting bad I want to give them a few more dB to work with.
I've written before that QRP operators can be compared to certain persons with dietary habits. Sometimes vegetarians will eat dairy but if your vegan then you're abstain from anything that didn't grow from a root. Well I'm more of a QRP vegetarian who will occasionally put a slice of bacon on my sandwich if I think it will improve the taste. I'm certainly no vegan when it comes to operating QRP alone. I've used my TenTec Eagle and TenTec C21 to go beyond 5w when the mood struck and in the case of SSB I've rarely operated at QRP levels with success so there I'm usually running well over QRP levels but I'd pretty much stuck to QRP for CW until recently.
Elecraft PXA100
Elecraft makes some very elegant equipment. The KX3 by itself, running on internal batteries and with a built-in auto-tuner is an amazingly portable and full featured QRP rig. With the newest version of firmware (MCU 2.70 / DSP 1.49, 2-27-2017) the KX3 will produce up to 15 watts of output on 80m, 40m and 20m when used with an external 13.8v power source, but if you want more than that you need an external amplifier.
I've been reading lots about the Hardrock 50 external amp and had even bid on a couple of Ten Tec 405 QRP amplifiers (which I lost) recently. The Hardrock 50 was compelling for the price because it could be built with a full QSK option, whereas the old TenTec 405 did not have a full break in option but both would get my output up to 50 watts which is about 3-5 dB more output than the KX3 on it's own.
But my normal operating mode is to begin at QRP and if that's insufficient I turn up my power. In the case of most external amplifiers I would be over driving them if I kept the KX3 at 5 watts input to the amp. It would require dropping my KX3 input power to the amp and fiddle with the output until I was at the power level I wanted.
On the other hand, the Elecraft PXA100 is fully integrated with the KX3 and I can simply turn up the power knob of the KX3 and when the power exceeds what the KX3 is capable of on its own the PXA100 electronics take care of adjusting the KX3's input into the amp to give me a smooth power output up to 100 watts. Additionally, when using the internal tuner option with PXA100 I can use two antenna outputs from the PXA100 and switch between them using the ANT button on the KX3 while the PXA100 tuner maintains independent tune memories for each antenna. It is a very slick package but an expensive one. Purchasing a used KX3 and PXA100 together puts you well over the $2k mark which you can certainly find more full featured 100w desk radios in that price. So for price conscious hams this is not a sensible option. I won't argue that this makes sense from a financial aspect, but I did it anyway. Given the vibrant used market for ham equipment I wouldn't pay new prices for these but it still comes out to be a pricey desk rig even when purchased used.
OK, back to the PXA100. One absolutely brilliant aspect of the PXA100 when using the internal tuner option is that its tuner seems every bit as good as the KX3's internal tuner. I think it will tune a spoon on 160m (admittedly I haven't tried that). It has no trouble tuning my ladder line fed attic Doublet which has some serious impedance mismatches on certain bands, so being able to quickly switch between my attic doublet and my outdoor Windom has been a real boon that I don't think other desk rigs can match with their internal tuners. I could be wrong, but Elecraft's tuners and super fast matching algorithms are pretty much legendary in the industry.
Another nice thing about the KX3/PXA100 combo is that full break-in QSK is maintained and there are no fans. My shack stays very quiet (I hate fans). The amp has a massive finned heat sink on top that while getting quite warm to the touch has not become overheated even on extended transmissions at 100w into non-resonant loads. I still haven't delved into digital modes but I'm confident that while the KX3 struggles to maintain its cool when used for full cycle modes at 5w and above, when used with the PXA100 this combo avoids that problem because the KX3 is only running between 2-3w intput into the amp and can dissipate its heat at that level with no problem.
So for the past week I've been using this combo and I'm quite pleased.
Here is a video that I made today in a contact on 30m where I started at 5w and moved up to 25w and switched antennas during the QSO.
So lower your power and raise your expectations, but when expectations fail, use an amp
I've been playing around with my SDRPlay and have been thrilled with its sensitivity when connected to my attic antenna. My attic antenna is a 68 foot doublet that weaves around my attic and is fed with 450 ohm ladder line. I use a 1:1 balun connected to the ladder line and a short run of coax with the RF-front-end-protection to feed my SDR.
My Doublet antenna is not resonant on any ham band and requires matching to bring the impedance in line with something my transceiver wants to transmit into.
My outdoor antenna is an 80m OCF Dipole (aka Windom) in the 1/3 configuration, meaning that the short side of the dipole is 1/3 the length of the long side. Its been a good performer for me and is resonant on 80m, 40m, 20m, 17m, 12m and 10m . While using the indoor Doublet antenna as a receive antenna for the SDR (with front-end protection and a relay to switch out the SDR during transmit) I use the Windom connected to my transceiver.
This configuration has worked well and the SDR feeding HDSDR as a panadapter has been a real boon to finding stations quickly as well as being a wideband audio feed to CWSkimmer.
HDSDR fed by my SDRPlay
For grins I wondered how much better the Windom would be as a receive antenna for the SDR on the resonant Ham bands... Well it was between 6dB to 10dB down on reception on most bands when used with my SDR. I tested this by alternately connecting the Windom and the Doublet to the SDR for repeated tests.
This doesn't make sense to me. I assumed that a resonant antenna (and one that's much longer) would be a better antenna than the Doublet for the SDR but it's not working that way in my case.
When I use the Doublet with the transceiver it is used with an autotuner. In general my A/B tests using my transceiver between the Doublet and the Windom are about 3dB to 6dB weaker for the Doublet on receive but I often get better RBN signal reports using the Doublet by a few dB on transmit.
I'm really perplexed. I expected the Windom to be a better receive antenna for the SDR.
Using SDRPlay as a panadapter for the Ten-Tec Eagle
SDRPlay produces a nice middle of the line Software Defined Radio (SDR)
SDRs are a lot of fun to play with simply as broad band receivers. I've used the regenerative receiver I built for some shortwave listening but that isn't even in the same universe of capability as a good software defined receiver. SDRPlay is significantly better than what you'll find with simple RTL-SDR dongles but costs around $150 as compared to $25 for the dongles. Since there are other reviews of SDRPlay out there so I won't go into details other than to mention that it offers continuous coverage from 10kHz to 2 GHz, has a 12-bit ADC rather than the 8-bit ADCs in dongles and provides up to 10 MHz bandwidth at a time.
One of the ADCs on the SDRPlay board
Using SDRPlay as a panadapter
In addition to using SDRPlay as an incredible broadband receiver, I wanted to use it as a panadapter for my Ten-Tec Eagle. My Eagle is an early run model that does not provide an IF output or the circuitry to drive a panadapter. It is possible to splice into the Low Pass filter line of the Eagle with some minor surgery to provide receive antenna input to the SDR but if I did that the SDR could only be used when the radio is turned on and its receive bandwidth is limited to the Low Pass filter switched in the Eagle at the time. I didn't want that limitation or to have to keep switching the receiver's antenna inputs when I switched back and forth. So I decided to keep the receive antenna external from the Eagle.
But to do that I had to protect the front end of the SDR from the transmitter or it would be overloaded and destroyed.
WARNING: Input to the SDRPlay cannot exceed 0dBm without causing damage so be very careful when using your SDR with a transmitter
Front end protection
There are a number of designs for protecting receivers from overload used in multi-station events. A common circuit is a bulb with two reversed diodes to shunt off extra energy.
I considered building one but when I priced out the parts and a metal enclosure I decided to just buy one. I found one made by a ham in Slovenia (Aleš S59MA) that was reasonably priced and available on a famous auction site.
This allows me to use a receive antenna connected to the SDR with this protector in-line while I transmit on my outdoor antenna.
That works but the panadapter display really lights up when I transmit and while the specs say everything should be safe I'll feel better switching out the receive antenna on transmit. I ordered a kit from OK1RP. The kit requires some extra parts (2x2N2222 transistors and 4x4k7 resistors) to complete that most hams already have but my junk box is pretty shallow so I ordered the 2N2222 transistors from DigiKey. The part specs are listed on OK1RP's page.
Simple receiver switching circuit can be built in 30 minutes
Note that this relay defaults to the receiver output being switched off when there's no power supplied to the relay. The relays are so quiet I have to hold it up to my ear to hear it operate.
A bit of extra armor
The SDRPlay RSP1 comes in an unshielded plastic enclosure but I wanted to keep noise and near-field RF at bay. So I added layer of protection from near field RF by putting it in an aluminum enclosure.
Original plastic enclosure to the right
$20 aluminum enclosure
Making it work as a panadapter
Bring in the CAT - Computer Aided Transceiver
SDRPlay feeds IF/IQ to software defined receivers like HDSDR. That provides a way to view and listen to all that can be received by the SDR, not just ham bands but any signal from 10kHz up to 2GHz. But to use it as a panadapter for my Eagle I needed a way to control both HDSDR and my transceiver.
OmniRig is CAT control software that simplifies software control of receivers and transceivers. It communicates through COM ports. The Eagle has a USB to serial interface that uses a hardware COM port but HDSDR is software with no physical COM port. HDSDR can be CAT controlled as well using either a Virtual COM port or DDE interface.
So I created a Virtual serial port using VSPE software to create a virtual serial port "pair". The first COM port is considered the INPUT from HDSDR. The second pair of the COM ports is the OUTPUT to be used by the listening application (OmniRig). OmniRig needs to know the "type" of "radio" it's talking to. HDSDR uses the Kenwood CAT protocol so I chose Kenwood when configuring OmniRig.
HDSDR also provides the ability to synchronize the CAT traffic between two OmniRig connected radios. This ability to sync two rigs is the key to making this work. It syncs with the transceiver so that changes made in HDSR are sent via CAT control to the Eagle and vice-versa.
SDRs have huge bandwidth
SDRPlay can send up 10MHz of bandwidth to the SDR software receiver. That much bandwidth isn't terribly useful other than at the macro scale of seeing if there are signals. More typically I set the IF bandwidth to 2MHz which easily covers an entire ham band and use the zoom control in HDSR to narrow it even further. What's further, I can feed IF audio from what's being received by the SDR to programs such as CWSkimmer. CWSkimmer has an interface for the SoftRock SDR to receive up to 192kHz. The issue was how to get the audio output from HDSDR to the CWSkimmer application.
To accomplish that I use VB-Audio virtual audio cable to route 192kHz bandwidth of audio from HDSDR to CWSkimmer's SoftRock IF/IQ interface. CWSkimmer also has an OmniRig interface so that is configured to read the second virtual COM port pair from HDSDR. Thus I can control the Eagle from either HDSDR or from CWSkimmer and vice-versa, changing the VFO on the Eagle commands HDSDR and thus CWSkimmer to follow it.
As I've been posting videos I've received requests to display the translation of the CW as it's received and sent. I have tried narrating a bit in some of the videos but that doesn't cut it. So I did this little video test to see how FLDIGI would translate the code and capture that translation from my computer screen then display it in the video at the bottom.
It worked reasonably well for this short message but I think when I have my next video QSO I'll need to capture the entire FLDIGI translation window and include it as a video insert. This was just a test for me to see how to use iMovie to overlay a video within a video.
Hopefully you'll enjoy this little test... No QSO, just me rotating sending different words across each type of key I had on the desk.
Still relatively new to the HF CW scene I have a bit over 1400 contacts and I've found that more than half my calls now are with stations I've previously worked. Don't get me wrong, that's not a problem, and I enjoy the camaraderie of frequent chats. But even so, I want to expand my reach and begin working some DX stations on a more regular basis.
My 80m OCF Dipole (Windom) is resonant (below 2:1 SWR) on 80m, 40m, 20m, 17m, 12m, 10m and 6m. So I've been spending time on 17 and 10 meters, trying to work beyond my normal circle of CW contacts. Yes the solar cycle is definitely on the wane but I am pulling in a few contacts on 17m and each one is a new call for me.
This afternoon, after about 10 minutes of fruitless calling on 18.080 I spun the VFO and behold, I heard a VK station (VK2DX) calling on 18.074. I had to send my call a few times but he copied me and we exchanged reports and names.
A QSO with Australia, I was psyched!
My first VK contact with VK2DX in Australia -- 9636 miles
RF is indeed magic
Now for you old timers with thousands of contacts in the log and dozens of VK's in the log you're thinking no big deal, but if you're new to this and started on the downside of the solar cycle you may be thinking, like me, that 10,000 mile DX is rarer than hens teeth.
So, if you're still new to HF and you think you'll need to wait until the solar cycle 25 for a CW contact with the other side of the world, because your using a low power radio and a wire antenna; just keep plugging along and you'll probably find the RF pixies are smiling at you.
So give those higher frequencies a shot even when they sound dead and RBN shows nary a spot.
EDIT:
Just checked my RBN spot page (spots for AA4OO) and I did indeed get picked up by a RBN station in Australia but on 20m rather than 17m. So maybe it's not so surprising that I was able to work him today. I need to pay more attention to my RBN spots.
