RE: [Elecraft] Iambic Myth
I've done a couple of read's through that article. While it has many good points, it also has some glaring errors which make it somewhat uncredible to me. E.g. when listing the letters that benefit from squeeze technique, the list is limited to C, F, K, L, Y, Q and R. When listing the letters that are most commonly used and then identifying those that are squeezable, R is left off the list. So instead of 1 in 12 being squeezable, the right number is 2 in 12, thus doubling the efficiency. If we're willing to accept the idea that squeezing with thumb and index finger is more efficient than rocking the hand back forth, then we can add A and N to the list as they can be sent with one squeeze motion. Now the list of squeezable chars climbs to 4 in 12. Other thoughts like If you force yourself to squeeze every possible character, you will expend more time and effort in learning to do that, than any possible efficiency savings are not universally true. I suppose if I were an experienced bug user trying to learn Iambic it may have some validity but in my case I went to Iambic from a straight key and had no built-in bias against Iambic. I don't have to force myself to do anything with the keyer. Squeeze keying comes naturally as it is all I've ever known. Sending with a Cootie key - now that is something I have to think about! The other mentioned disadvantage of Iambic is that it has a speed ceiling where sending faster than 40 wpm or so is too difficult. I have a ceiling on receiving that kicks in long before 40 wpm so that is absolutely not an issue. Just because the speed champs use non-iambic does not make that method better any more than a race car is better than a mini-van. The article is very interesting and a good read, much like a 20/20 report. Bottom line? Don't let the attempt to bust a myth steal your fun. If you like Iambic, go for it (A or B - your choice). If you think it's stupid, fine, use a single paddle key, bug, cootie or join me and use a straight key! It's not so much how you send, but THAT you send, Yes? 73! - Keith KD1E - - K2 5411 - -Original Message- http://www.morsex.com/pubs/iambicmyth.pdf ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
RE: [Elecraft] Iambic Myth
KD1E: I've done a couple of read's through that article. While it has many good points, it also has some glaring errors which make it somewhat uncredible to me. Some good points Keith. If someone wanted to analyze this to death they would weight the analysis by frequency of occurrence of letters in ordinary conversation. Of course this is not an issue in the HST tests since they send random 5 letter code groups. The other mentioned disadvantage of Iambic is that it has a speed ceiling where sending faster than 40 wpm or so is too difficult. I have a ceiling on receiving that kicks in long before 40 wpm so that is absolutely not an issue. Competition is the ultimate measure of efficiency IMHO. Believe me, most competitors would learn to send standing on their heads if they felt it would improve their results. The simple fact is that the non-iambic single-paddle method has been proven better in QRQ competition. Just because the speed champs use non-iambic does not make that method better any more than a race car is better than a mini-van. I agree completely. Just because some claim iambic is more efficient, does not make it better. Non-iambic has been proven better for QRQ speeds or for people whose hand coordination (for squeeze timing) may not be good due to age or other disabilities such as palsy, MS, etc. My good friend N4SU (now SK) had to give up his hobby of some 70 years because his trembling hands could not send due to Parkinson's disease. I didn't realize it at the time or I would have suggested he stop trying to send iambic with dual-paddles and switch to a single-paddle key, which is much more forgiving of timing errors. My point is don't always take conventional wisdom as as gospel. Sometimes we simply need to find what works best for us individually (as you said). 73, Bill W4ZV ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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] Iambic Myth
I wrote: I believe the supposed efficiency advantage of iambic keying is a myth. Someone published an analysis of this within the past year or two but I cannot find it at the moment. I found the analysis here: http://www.morsex.com/pubs/iambicmyth.pdf Summary: ** The Myth Exposed The idea that iambic keying is more efficient has been around for a long time, and few operators ever question it, even if they are having trouble doing it. They might blame themselves, or the paddle, and it stops being fun. At first it does seem to have a certain cool factor, and no doubt thats why it was invented to start with. Some computer programmer looked at an electronic keyer, realized that he was looking at logic states (dot is on or off, dash is on or off) and decided to fill in the rest of the truth table he was using either a or b , and he was using neither a nor b but he wasnt doing anything with both a and b. In other words there was a third switch that wasnt being used. Not a bad idea on the face of it, and weve been paying the price ever since. Iambic keying became all the rage, and manufacturers got to make a bunch of new-fangled dual paddles. Somewhere in there electronic keyer designers decided to offer refinements of the basic principles, giving everybody Iambic A vs Iambic B to argue about, and distracting them from any consideration of whether Iambic Anything was worth bothering with. Its like saying the emperor has no clothes, but Ill say it anyhow iambic keying is clever, and fun, but of very little practical value. Worse, it can impose a speed limit on your sending, and ruin another perfectly good amateur radio myth the widely accepted notion that anyone can send twice as fast as he can receive. But lets talk about that one another time. *** 73, Bill W4ZV ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
RE: [Elecraft] Iambic Myth
I used Iambic keying because I found it smooth and easy and it does involve fewer paddle movements for many things. Sometimes it cuts the hand motions by half! For example, sending CQ involves only eight finger movements in Iambic mode compared to sixteen movements in conventional keyer mode. (Iambic mode requires dash on, dit on, dash and dit off (end of C), dash on, touch dit, dash and dit off (end of Q). Conventional keying requires dash on, dash off, dit on, dit off, dash on, dash off, dit on, dit off (C) dash on, dash off, dash on, dash off, dit on, dit off, dash on, dash off (Q)). Someone might argue that cutting the finger movements in half has no practical value and doesn't allow faster sending. I wouldn't know since I've never exceeded 35 or 40 WPM on the air and 99.9% of my QSO's are at around 20 WPM or even less. What I do know is that I enjoyed the smooth simplicity of Iambic keying. Most of the histories I've read attributed the modes A and B to a mistake in the logic in an early popular ASIC designed for keyers. It might have been Curtiss' original but I'm not sure about that. In any case, it was a very usable variation and it stuck, hence the two modes. Also, I'd like to point out that Iambic keying predates virtually every commercially made keyer and paddle set on the market today. Electronic keyers go back at least to the 1940's, although they didn't have the fancy self completing and auto spacing features we take for granted now. Still, hardly a month went by when QST didn't have something about new keyer development in it. I was finally hooked in the early 70's when the CMOS version of the Accu-keyer (it originally used current-hungry TTL chips) was published. At that time I splurged on some inexpensive Ham key paddles, which were dual paddles. Many operators bolted two J-38 keys base-to-base on a vertical support to use as paddles or homebrewed paddles in a variety of ways. There were no commercial interests driving those developments. They were coming out of the junk boxes and workshops of Hams all over the world. Today's huge range of expensive keyers and paddles came along long after the use of keyers and Iambic mode was in common use by Hams who rolled their own one way or another. So I'm not inclined to blame the development of the modes or the widespread use of Iambic mode on any commercial activity. It's just something a lot of Hams found useful and they adopted it. Ron AC7AC ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
