Morse Key Contacts?

[gareth]

For those who make their own Morse Keys, what do you use for the contacts,
for
I have found the phosphor bronze pillar for the dot contact on my ersatz
Vibroplex
to be very noisy and scratchy?

I'm fairly sure that I asked this question before, but it has been a habit
of never put off till
tomorrow what you can put off till the day after.

I chose phosphor bronze because in the days of making one's own electronic
organs, phosphor bronze was suggested as a suitable keying matreial for the
keyboards.

[Rambo]

Never built a morse key but in the telecomms industry, Palladium was
the way to go.

[Jeefaw K. Effkay]

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 12:50:56 AM UTC, Rambo wrote:

> Never built a morse key but in the telecomms industry, Palladium was
> the way to go.

For QSOs on a Saturday night?

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

"gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
> For those who make their own Morse Keys, what do you use for the contacts,
> for
> I have found the phosphor bronze pillar for the dot contact on my ersatz
> Vibroplex
> to be very noisy and scratchy?
>
> I'm fairly sure that I asked this question before, but it has been a habit
> of never put off till
> tomorrow what you can put off till the day after.

Or put off for 18 years.

> I chose phosphor bronze because in the days of making one's own electronic
> organs, phosphor bronze was suggested as a suitable keying matreial for the
> keyboards.

By electronic organ you mean battery powered dildo, I presume?

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

"Jeefaw K. Effkay" <mike.ga...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:7d1e9776-96bf-4a1d...@googlegroups.com...

did it rotate? ...

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message
news:n5atrr$gqo$1...@dont-email.me...

> STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur
>

tee hee ...very good ...

[Jeefaw K. Effkay]

I have a feeling of deja vu about this thread ...

... oh look, there it is!
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/uk.radio.amateur/london$20palladium/uk.radio.amateur/anaT0Un3mZ8/sjRx1KqpylwJ

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

I'm here all week, folks! Tickets are going fast!

--

[Fred Roberts]

On 21/12/2015 23:33, gareth wrote:
> For those who make their own Morse Keys, what do you use for the
> contacts, for I have found the phosphor bronze pillar for the dot
> contact on my ersatz Vibroplex to be very noisy and scratchy?

What about the contacts from an old relay?

--
Extend twats law - make 'em wear a cheat sheet 24/7

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo <5df8700a-3942-4ec9...@googlegroups.com>,
Jeefaw K. Effkay <mike.ga...@googlemail.com> escribió:

>I have a feeling of deja vu about this thread ...

When your (Evans's) technical acumen is so lacking that you'll be (and
are) regularly called out as talking absolute crap on any technical-
related matter, it's safer and easier for you (Evans) to recycle the
same tired old shit again and again and again...

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo <n5atrr$gqo$1...@dont-email.me>, Stephen Thomas Cole
<use...@stephenthomascole.com> escribió:

>By electronic organ you mean battery powered dildo, I presume?

He could take it cruising in his cute little turquoise jeep-ette.

[gareth]

"Fred Roberts" <f...@bar.com> wrote in message
news:Vb9ey.268519$jq2....@fx46.am4...

> On 21/12/2015 23:33, gareth wrote:
>> For those who make their own Morse Keys, what do you use for the
>> contacts, for I have found the phosphor bronze pillar for the dot
>> contact on my ersatz Vibroplex to be very noisy and scratchy?
>
> What about the contacts from an old relay?

It's always the same with hoarding in the junk box; I've these 12V Varley
plug in relays
that would do the job excellently, but it seems a pity to wreck a relay,
even though
I've about 20 of them and all unused for 20 years !!!!!!!

Yes, that's obviously the answer, and I must overcome that hoarding
instinct!!

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

"Jeefaw K. Effkay" <mike.ga...@googlemail.com> wrote in message

news:5df8700a-3942-4ec9...@googlegroups.com...

OK I will introduce...prop pitch motor....Mornington Crescent ! ....

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

"Mike Tomlinson" <mi...@jasper.org.uk> wrote in message
news:+gj8sTTf...@jasper.org.uk...

> En el artículo <5df8700a-3942-4ec9...@googlegroups.com>,
> Jeefaw K. Effkay <mike.ga...@googlemail.com> escribió:
>
>>I have a feeling of deja vu about this thread ...
>
> When your (Evans's) technical acumen is so lacking that you'll be (and
> are) regularly called out as talking absolute crap on any technical-
> related matter, it's safer and easier for you (Evans) to recycle the
> same tired old shit again and again and again...
>

one must do ....

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message

news:n5b4d8$4f7$4...@dont-email.me...

here is a couple for you to buy ....

https://www.gumtree.com/p/other-concert-tickets/bay-city-rollers-tickets-tonight-barrowlands/1147344052

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3368354/Rollermania-Tartan-clad-fans-turn-force-watch-Bay-City-Rollers-return-stage-40-years.html

[Rambo]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:47:19 -0000 (UTC), Brian Reay <no...@m.com>
wrote:

>Found, I believe, on the surface of disk drive disks.
>
>The disks are generally aluminium (some are plastic, which surprised me)
>and they have a thin coat of Palladium.
>
>(It is amazing what you stumble across on YouTube, the above comes from a
>video about scrapping disk drives which appeared as a suggestion when
>looking for something- not about scrapping disk drives but it caught my
>eye.)


http://tinyurl.com/jfvryeq

Interesting comparison of contact materials in relays. As you can see
Gold and copper are not the best options.

[Gareth's Kitchen Komputer]

If a question's worth asking, Gareth...

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

These always crack me up. You're doing great work here.

--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur

[Jeefaw K. Effkay]

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 11:33:18 PM UTC, gareth wrote:
> For those who make their own Morse Keys, what do you use for the contacts,
> for
> I have found the phosphor bronze pillar for the dot contact on my ersatz
> Vibroplex
> to be very noisy and scratchy?

He fettled his key himself
With contacts made from platinum
The Wiltshire plods keep the cells so clean
Ready to throw a twat in 'em

[Bob Wilson]

I have not made lots of keys, but when I do I use contacts from old
relays. I still have some relays I bought as WWII surplus when I was in
my teens, back in the 1950's. They have strange coil parameters, weird
mounting arrangements, etc., but nice little silver contacts.
Bob W, WA9D

[rickman]

Why use a mechanical switch? There are magnetic hall effect switches
around. Or a mercury wetted switch can be operated by a magnet. Are the
magnetic switches too sloppy?

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

[rickman]

I knew I was forgetting something. An optical switch is easy enough to make
and can be very precise as well.

[Gareth's Downstairs Computer]

Perhaps you confuse mercury wetted with reed relays?

[rickman]

I am thinking of reed relays, so I guess I used the wrong name, but aren't
they wetted with mercury to prevent corrosion building up?

[Gareth's Downstairs Computer]

In the closed atmosphere of the glass tube, there should not be any
corrosion, I think. ISTR some gas in there, but don't know about
mercury wetting.

[rickman]

Call it what you want, corrosion, oxidation, just plain pitting. The point
is a solid surface will wear from the arcing that happens when contacts
break connections (which also happens on initiating connection because of
switch bounce). Mercury doesn't have this problem as it is a liquid and
reforms the layer every time it is "pitted".

[Jerry Stuckle]

Mercury also does not make a "clean" break. It "puddles" as the
contacts are pulled apart due to surface tension. It leads to irregular
break timing. This isn't a problem at low switching speeds as you have
in regular switches and relays, but can be at higher rates as in CW.
Additionally a magnetic field for switching accentuates this problem.
Reed relays are good for things like security system contacts, but not a
CW key.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[rickman]

I haven't timed such switches. What is the timing precision requirement for
CW? Does optical satisfy it?

[Jerry Stuckle]

Never tried optical but as long as you can get a clean make/break of the
beam it should work. The problem as i see it would be that clean
make/break; the beam will fade in and out. Probably not as bad as a
reed switch - but for high speed CW you need clean operation.
That's why many keys use brass contacts or similar; the have a clean
make/break. And even if they get pitted they are soft enough to burnish
rather easily and thick enough to last for years.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

Jerry, AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[rickman]

So no numbers? Let's try to make some.

According to Tom - W4BQF, "All high speed code (above about 55 wpm) is sent
with a keyboard/keyer or a computer keyboard". So we can use 55 WPM as an
upper limit for using a manual key.

Dot length = 1.2 seconds / WPM = 1.2 / 55 ~= 22 ms

Switch bounce time for many switches is some single digit ms. So I'm not
sure what "clean" make/break means. The bounce time for reed switches is
about the same as other switches I found.

[Jerry Stuckle]

No, it is not bounce time - "clean" is how quickly it makes/breaks.
Brass contacts are virtually instantaneous. However, reed switches
operate via a magnetic field. This field is not a simple make/break -
it gets stronger and weaker depending on the distance from the magnet.
IOW, brass contacts are digital but the magnet field is analog. The
actual switching does not necessarily always occur at the same magnetic
field strength. Additionally, switching off to on requires a stronger
magnetic field than the release. The two combined can result in varying
width pulses at high speed. Optical is also analog and can have similar
problems.

And before you dismiss all of this - why don't you see any paddles with
reed switches or optical? If these methods are so good, why aren't they
in the high-end paddles/keys?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

Jerry Stuckle
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[rickman]

Whether or not reed switches are used in keys is not related to your
understanding of electronics.

Reed switches are *not* analog any more than mechanical switches in that
they don't vary the connection continuously. They are still metallic
switches and make or break when the metals touch. The fact that the
magnetic field varies continuously is no different from the pressure from
the paddle varying the position of the mechanical switch contact
"continuously". I found no information indicating significant variations in
the action of reed switches. The variation in pull-in and release field
strength gives a small amount of hysteresis which is desirable in any
switch. It is not enough to distort the key times from one character to the
next.

Likewise optical is only optical in the movement of the paddle and the
signal seen by the detector. Once the signal passes through a threshold
detector with hysteresis the signal is purely digital. The strong suit of
optical is that it eliminates all mechanical issues of wear and failure.

I did a bit of reading about reed switches yesterday and they have much less
bounce time than other switches and the mercury wetted types have virtually
no bounce time. In fact while looking for info on typical bounce times one
of the pages I found showed a rather elaborate circuit to debounce the two
mechanical switches in a keyer. If the switches were so instantaneous, why
would they need a debounce circuit?

Your analysis above shows a complete lack of understanding of how switches
in general work and not just reed switches. Try reading about switches a
bit. You will quickly find that metallic switches do not make or break
cleanly with an "instantaneous" connection. Just use google or any other
tool to find some info on this and read it.

[Gareth's Kitchen Komputer]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 18:57:18 -0500, rickman wrote:

> Jerry Stuckle wrote on 11/17/2017 3:23 PM:

>> And before you dismiss all of this - why don't you see any paddles with reed
>> switches or optical? If these methods are so good, why aren't they in the
>> high-end paddles/keys?

> Your analysis above shows a complete lack of understanding of how switches
> in general work and not just reed switches. Try reading about switches a
> bit. You will quickly find that metallic switches do not make or break
> cleanly with an "instantaneous" connection. Just use google or any other
> tool to find some info on this and read it.

Dickman & Schtukle: proof that Usenet distils down to the purest wankers.

[Jerry Stuckle]

It is. That is the context in which they were brought up. But I know
you'd rather change the context than admit you are wrong.

> Reed switches are *not* analog any more than mechanical switches in that
> they don't vary the connection continuously.  They are still metallic
> switches and make or break when the metals touch.  The fact that the
> magnetic field varies continuously is no different from the pressure
> from the paddle varying the position of the mechanical switch contact
> "continuously".  I found no information indicating significant
> variations in the action of reed switches.  The variation in pull-in and
> release field strength gives a small amount of hysteresis which is
> desirable in any switch.  It is not enough to distort the key times from
> one character to the next.
>

Reed switches are not - but the magnet field which triggers them are.
And there is a huge difference between the magnetic field and finger
pressure on a paddle. That's exactly why reed switches are not used on
paddles.

> Likewise optical is only optical in the movement of the paddle and the
> signal seen by the detector.  Once the signal passes through a threshold
> detector with hysteresis the signal is purely digital.  The strong suit
> of optical is that it eliminates all mechanical issues of wear and failure.
>

The same is true for optical - except that optical can also be affected
by ambient light, making the switch even less reliable.

> I did a bit of reading about reed switches yesterday and they have much
> less bounce time than other switches and the mercury wetted types have
> virtually no bounce time.  In fact while looking for info on typical
> bounce times one of the pages I found showed a rather elaborate circuit
> to debounce the two mechanical switches in a keyer.  If the switches
> were so instantaneous, why would they need a debounce circuit?
>

Once again it isn't the bounce that causes the problem.

> Your analysis above shows a complete lack of understanding of how
> switches in general work and not just reed switches.  Try reading about
> switches a bit.  You will quickly find that metallic switches do not
> make or break cleanly with an "instantaneous" connection.  Just use
> google or any other tool to find some info on this and read it.
>

Nope, my analysis is right on. And it is exactly why reed and optical
switching is not used in keys and paddles.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

Jerry, AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[Jerry Stuckle]

Your stoopidity is showing again, Gareth.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

Jerry, AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[rickman]

There is nothing going on here except that you are mistaken about the
functioning of switches. How about you address the issues rather than
diverting the discussion.

>> Reed switches are *not* analog any more than mechanical switches in that
>> they don't vary the connection continuously. They are still metallic
>> switches and make or break when the metals touch. The fact that the
>> magnetic field varies continuously is no different from the pressure from
>> the paddle varying the position of the mechanical switch contact
>> "continuously". I found no information indicating significant variations
>> in the action of reed switches. The variation in pull-in and release
>> field strength gives a small amount of hysteresis which is desirable in
>> any switch. It is not enough to distort the key times from one character
>> to the next.
>>
>
> Reed switches are not - but the magnet field which triggers them are. And
> there is a huge difference between the magnetic field and finger pressure on
> a paddle. That's exactly why reed switches are not used on paddles.

"There is a huge difference"... but you can't say what that difference is.
The motion of the key paddle is analog which results in an analog
displacement of the mechanical switch until contact is made or in the case
of a reed switch, results in the analog change in field strength until the
threshold is reached where the switch pieces are pulled together. All
analog until the switch pieces make contact which results in a discrete
output change.

The real difference is in the bounce time. A mercury wetted reed switch has
no bounce time, contact is singular and certain. A mechanical switch has a
variable resistance until the point of contact stops moving and settles
down. That's the bounce time.

>> Likewise optical is only optical in the movement of the paddle and the
>> signal seen by the detector. Once the signal passes through a threshold
>> detector with hysteresis the signal is purely digital. The strong suit of
>> optical is that it eliminates all mechanical issues of wear and failure.
>>
>
> The same is true for optical - except that optical can also be affected by
> ambient light, making the switch even less reliable.

Lol. It is easy enough to exclude ambient light.

>> I did a bit of reading about reed switches yesterday and they have much
>> less bounce time than other switches and the mercury wetted types have
>> virtually no bounce time. In fact while looking for info on typical
>> bounce times one of the pages I found showed a rather elaborate circuit to
>> debounce the two mechanical switches in a keyer. If the switches were so
>> instantaneous, why would they need a debounce circuit?
>>
>
> Once again it isn't the bounce that causes the problem.

Bounce is a problem that makes the timing of the switch closure uncertain
and must be eliminated. Compensating for the uncertainly can't be done. So
what is the problem in mechanical switches if not bounce? If a switch
bounces for 5 or 10 ms, that is a significant portion of time for a 22 ms dot.

>> Your analysis above shows a complete lack of understanding of how switches
>> in general work and not just reed switches. Try reading about switches a
>> bit. You will quickly find that metallic switches do not make or break
>> cleanly with an "instantaneous" connection. Just use google or any other
>> tool to find some info on this and read it.
>>
>
> Nope, my analysis is right on. And it is exactly why reed and optical
> switching is not used in keys and paddles.

You actually haven't analyzed anything. You just keep repeating the same
unsupported conclusions ignoring the way mechanical switches operate.

[Gareth's Downstairs Computer]

On 18/11/2017 04:01, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 11/17/2017 7:14 PM, Gareth's Kitchen Komputer wrote:
>>
>> Dickman & Schtukle: proof that Usenet distils down to the purest wankers.
>>
>
> Your stoopidity is showing again, Gareth.
>

You're the stooopid one for attributing to me the remarks made
by one of my stalking Nonces.

[Gareth's Kitchen Komputer]

Schtoopid Schtuckle tells someone called Gareth their Stoopidity is
showing and you automatically assume he's talking to you?


Says it all, really.


Made for each other, you two.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Sorry, Gareth. You can't hide your stoopidity.

[Jerry Stuckle]

I'm not diverting the discussion. You just don't understand how
magnetic and optical sensors work. That is very obvious.

I did tell you the difference. But you called it off-topic. This is
not related to bounce time. But you can't get over that fact.

>
>>> Likewise optical is only optical in the movement of the paddle and the
>>> signal seen by the detector.  Once the signal passes through a threshold
>>> detector with hysteresis the signal is purely digital.  The strong
>>> suit of
>>> optical is that it eliminates all mechanical issues of wear and failure.
>>>
>>
>> The same is true for optical - except that optical can also be
>> affected by
>> ambient light, making the switch even less reliable.
>
> Lol.  It is easy enough to exclude ambient light.
>

And how are you going to do that without restricting the motion of the
paddles? Oh, I know. You have this magical whatchamacallit that
creates a black hole around the sensor and doesn't let any light in,
while not restricting any motion.

Right.

>
>>> I did a bit of reading about reed switches yesterday and they have much
>>> less bounce time than other switches and the mercury wetted types have
>>> virtually no bounce time.  In fact while looking for info on typical
>>> bounce times one of the pages I found showed a rather elaborate
>>> circuit to
>>> debounce the two mechanical switches in a keyer.  If the switches
>>> were so
>>> instantaneous, why would they need a debounce circuit?
>>>
>>
>> Once again it isn't the bounce that causes the problem.
>
> Bounce is a problem that makes the timing of the switch closure
> uncertain and must be eliminated.  Compensating for the uncertainly
> can't be done.  So what is the problem in mechanical switches if not
> bounce?  If a switch bounces for 5 or 10 ms, that is a significant
> portion of time for a 22 ms dot.
>

THIS IS NOT RELATED TO BOUNCE! GET OVER IT!

>
>>> Your analysis above shows a complete lack of understanding of how
>>> switches
>>> in general work and not just reed switches.  Try reading about
>>> switches a
>>> bit.  You will quickly find that metallic switches do not make or break
>>> cleanly with an "instantaneous" connection.  Just use google or any
>>> other
>>> tool to find some info on this and read it.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, my analysis is right on.  And it is exactly why reed and optical
>> switching is not used in keys and paddles.
>
> You actually haven't analyzed anything.  You just keep repeating the
> same unsupported conclusions ignoring the way mechanical switches operate.
>

I have, but you call it "off-topic". So if your ideas are so great, why
aren't there any high end manufacturers which have keys or paddles with
reed or optical switches? If they are as good as you say, I would
expect to see dozens of them on the market. Or maybe they know I'm
right and you're wrong.

Why don't you come up with your own paddles using them and market them?
If they're as good as you say, you should make a fortune.

[rickman]

Go back and read. I didn't say anything technical you said was off topic.
I was pointing out that what others do is not limited by you lack of
understanding.

And you have failed to explain what *is* the problem. Rather than discuss
the issue you are diverting. Is there something you would like to
understand better?

>>>> Likewise optical is only optical in the movement of the paddle and the
>>>> signal seen by the detector. Once the signal passes through a threshold
>>>> detector with hysteresis the signal is purely digital. The strong suit of
>>>> optical is that it eliminates all mechanical issues of wear and failure.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The same is true for optical - except that optical can also be affected by
>>> ambient light, making the switch even less reliable.
>>
>> Lol. It is easy enough to exclude ambient light.
>>
>
> And how are you going to do that without restricting the motion of the
> paddles? Oh, I know. You have this magical whatchamacallit that creates a
> black hole around the sensor and doesn't let any light in, while not
> restricting any motion.
>
> Right.

The mechanical force can be conveyed without light entering. I guess you've
never used a camera with a mechanical shutter? This wouldn't require
anything nearly as complex as that, but you do need to understand the
principle before you can see how it might be done.

>>>> I did a bit of reading about reed switches yesterday and they have much
>>>> less bounce time than other switches and the mercury wetted types have
>>>> virtually no bounce time. In fact while looking for info on typical
>>>> bounce times one of the pages I found showed a rather elaborate circuit to
>>>> debounce the two mechanical switches in a keyer. If the switches were so
>>>> instantaneous, why would they need a debounce circuit?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Once again it isn't the bounce that causes the problem.
>>
>> Bounce is a problem that makes the timing of the switch closure uncertain
>> and must be eliminated. Compensating for the uncertainly can't be done.
>> So what is the problem in mechanical switches if not bounce? If a switch
>> bounces for 5 or 10 ms, that is a significant portion of time for a 22 ms
>> dot.
>>
>
> THIS IS NOT RELATED TO BOUNCE! GET OVER IT!

Actually, it *is* related to bounce as a debounce circuit is required and
typical debounce circuits create delay with undefined delays. Instead of
yelling what the issue isn't, how about you explain what it *is*?

>>>> Your analysis above shows a complete lack of understanding of how switches
>>>> in general work and not just reed switches. Try reading about switches a
>>>> bit. You will quickly find that metallic switches do not make or break
>>>> cleanly with an "instantaneous" connection. Just use google or any other
>>>> tool to find some info on this and read it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, my analysis is right on. And it is exactly why reed and optical
>>> switching is not used in keys and paddles.
>>
>> You actually haven't analyzed anything. You just keep repeating the same
>> unsupported conclusions ignoring the way mechanical switches operate.
>>
>
> I have, but you call it "off-topic".

You have not explained anything and I said nothing technical you said was
off topic. You simply incorrectly stated that a magnetic switch is analog
(which actually makes no sense) because the field at the switch varies in a
continuous manner until the threshold is reached. You erroneously stated
the mechanical switch (which a reed is also) is "digital" because it is
either open or closed, totally ignoring the fact that a reed relay is uses
mechanical contacts as well. Both devices have an analog input, the range
of motion/force for the mechanical switch and the magnetic field for the
reed/Hall switch and a digital output, closed or not closed.

> So if your ideas are so great, why
> aren't there any high end manufacturers which have keys or paddles with reed
> or optical switches? If they are as good as you say, I would expect to see
> dozens of them on the market. Or maybe they know I'm right and you're wrong.

Have you done a survey of all keys on the market? I haven't. Maybe I'll
patent the idea if no one is doing it.

> Why don't you come up with your own paddles using them and market them? If
> they're as good as you say, you should make a fortune.

A fortune? I don't think there is that large a market for any ham product.
Who has made a "fortune" selling anything to hams?

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Gents, can you please fuck off.

[Bernie]

On 18 Nov 2017 18:00:54 GMT

Vote Steve!

[Jim Jam ...]

>> Why don't you come up with your own paddles using them and market them?
>> If
>> they're as good as you say, you should make a fortune.
>
> A fortune? I don't think there is that large a market for any ham
> product. Who has made a "fortune" selling anything to hams?
>

yes it is the class Bs and the hammy mens that have all the money.....

[Jim Jam ...]

> Gents, can you please fuck off.
>

after you Cicel ....

[Brian Howie]

This guy here sells optical keys.

http://www.morseexpress.com/ghd/

Brian GM4DIJ

[Spike]

On 18/11/2017 18:17, Jim Jam ... wrote:

>> Gents, can you please fuck off.

> after you Cicel ....

Sounds like the PP is suffering from mental deterioration, according to
Reay Diagnostics.

I expect he'll be along shortly to tut-tut - unless the PP is one of the
unusual suspects, in which case he'll sit on his hands.


--
Spike

"Once you see the RSGB logo you know that you are on the right track" -
but to what?
Publish RSGBTech's definitions of 'genuine', 'interest', 'known',
'trouble', and 'maker',
as well as the contents of the vetting policy and its supporting database.

[Bernie]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 19:18:14 +0000
Spite <Arse...@male.invalid> dribbled:

> On 18/11/2017 18:17, Jim Jam ... wrote:
>
> >> Gents, can you please fuck off.
>
> > after you Cicel ....
>
> Sounds like the PP is suffering from mental deterioration, according
> to Reay Diagnostics.
>
> I expect he'll be along shortly to tut-tut - unless the PP is one of
> the unusual suspects, in which case he'll sit on his hands.
>
>

There's a lot of it about.

[Roger Hayter]

Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:

> Gents, can you please fuck off.

If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion why join in at all?

My personal theory as to why few commercial morse keys use reed switches
or optical switches is that that users like to able to connect their
morse keys to a wide range of voltages and impedances, especially if you
include traditional valve equipment. Both technologies are intolerant
of excessive voltages or current compared with a pair of solid metal
contacts. I don't think either speed, latency or debouncing are
significant factors or, at least, they could be designed out.


--

Roger Hayter

[Bernie]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 21:04:59 +0000
ro...@hayter.org (Roger Hayter) wrote:

> Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Gents, can you please fuck off.
>
> If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion why join in at
> all?

When I complained about Gareth's (amusing) chorizo giving people the
shits post in ukram you put forward the notion that being amusing was
enough:

" What jokes are appropriate? Do they have to reach a level of
sophistication to be OK in an AR group? Is there something especially
dignified about AR?"


Go fuck yourself, you sanctimonious wanker!

[mm0fmf]

WHS

[Jim Jam ...]

"Bernie" <bernie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7bmbu...@mid.individual.net...

Roger is a good guy...be quiet .......

[Jim Jam ...]

"mm0fmf" <no...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:ouq8sq$5e2$1...@dont-email.me...

SHOCKING

[Bernie]

He has no centre. He argues each point from a datum that suits the
moment.


He's a self-serving, sanctimonious wanker.


I can see why you like him.


You liked Chaz, too.

[Bernie]

Witless Habitual Storyteller?


Cheers.

[Gareth's Downstairs Computer]

On 18/11/2017 21:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
> Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Gents, can you please fuck off.
>
> If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion why join in at all?

He expressed his frustration at not understanding
what was being discussed.

So much for the 3-tier "progressive" exam fiasco.

But, what else do you expect from any of the Four Amigos?

[Bernie]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 21:48:39 +0000
Gareth's Downstairs Computer

Perhaps a poop joke would have bean more suited to you, Gareth?

[rickman]

You seem to be the one slinging mud this time. I thought you never started
arguments?

[Bernie]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:56:13 -0500
rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote on 11/18/2017 4:48 PM:
> > On 18/11/2017 21:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
> >> Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Gents, can you please fuck off.
> >>
> >> If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion why join in at
> >> all?
> >
> > He expressed his frustration at not understanding
> > what was being discussed.
> >
> > So much for the 3-tier "progressive" exam fiasco.
> >
> > But, what else do you expect from any of the Four Amigos?
>
> You seem to be the one slinging mud this time. I thought you never
> started arguments?
>

Another Chazalike.

[rickman]

Not trying to be argumentative, but I'd like to understand the basis of your
point. Why would the three things above not be factors in using mechanical
switches in keys? Bouncing switch contacts do pose an issue for clean
keying of a transmitter, no? So the bouncing has to be smoothed out. That
means adding electronics which means interface specific again, no? I
supposed you could use a high voltage capacitor and no buffer. That would
be a simple RC with the R in series with the key to the controlled point.

Maybe I'm not grasping what you are saying. How do you see a simple
mechanical switch being used to control many types of equipment?

BTW, there are transistors available that will switch high voltages and
currents. So a simple interface circuit would serve for use with many types
of equipment and any type of key switch you wish to use.

[Jerry Stuckle]

You accused me of diverting the discussion. That means going off-topic.
Nothing of the sort.

I have explained the problems - in detail. But you're so full of
yourself that you can't understand the topic. But that's your style.

>
>>>>> Likewise optical is only optical in the movement of the paddle and the
>>>>> signal seen by the detector.  Once the signal passes through a
>>>>> threshold
>>>>> detector with hysteresis the signal is purely digital.  The strong
>>>>> suit of
>>>>> optical is that it eliminates all mechanical issues of wear and
>>>>> failure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The same is true for optical - except that optical can also be
>>>> affected by
>>>> ambient light, making the switch even less reliable.
>>>
>>> Lol.  It is easy enough to exclude ambient light.
>>>
>>
>> And how are you going to do that without restricting the motion of the
>> paddles?  Oh, I know.  You have this magical whatchamacallit that
>> creates a
>> black hole around the sensor and doesn't let any light in, while not
>> restricting any motion.
>>
>> Right.
>
> The mechanical force can be conveyed without light entering.  I guess
> you've never used a camera with a mechanical shutter?  This wouldn't
> require anything nearly as complex as that, but you do need to
> understand the principle before you can see how it might be done.
>

Yes, and light enters the camera, doesn't it? You haven't explained how
to keep the light out without restricting the paddle. Not that I expect
you were able to do so.

>
>>>>> I did a bit of reading about reed switches yesterday and they have
>>>>> much
>>>>> less bounce time than other switches and the mercury wetted types have
>>>>> virtually no bounce time.  In fact while looking for info on typical
>>>>> bounce times one of the pages I found showed a rather elaborate
>>>>> circuit to
>>>>> debounce the two mechanical switches in a keyer.  If the switches
>>>>> were so
>>>>> instantaneous, why would they need a debounce circuit?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Once again it isn't the bounce that causes the problem.
>>>
>>> Bounce is a problem that makes the timing of the switch closure
>>> uncertain
>>> and must be eliminated.  Compensating for the uncertainly can't be done.
>>> So what is the problem in mechanical switches if not bounce?  If a
>>> switch
>>> bounces for 5 or 10 ms, that is a significant portion of time for a
>>> 22 ms
>>> dot.
>>>
>>
>> THIS IS NOT RELATED TO BOUNCE!  GET OVER IT!
>
> Actually, it *is* related to bounce as a debounce circuit is required
> and typical debounce circuits create delay with undefined delays.
> Instead of yelling what the issue isn't, how about you explain what it
> *is*?
>

Nope. Nothing of the sort. Debounce circuits are for a different
problem. And I have explained the issue. You are just too full of
yourself to try to understand it. But that's what I expect from you, Rick.

You accused me of diverting the discussion - which would mean I'm going
off-topic. Nothing of the sort. And no, I did NOT say the magnetic
switch was analog. But you're just too full of yourself to even try to
understand what I'm talking about.

>
>> So if your ideas are so great, why
>> aren't there any high end manufacturers which have keys or paddles
>> with reed
>> or optical switches?  If they are as good as you say, I would expect
>> to see
>> dozens of them on the market.  Or maybe they know I'm right and you're
>> wrong.
>
> Have you done a survey of all keys on the market?  I haven't.  Maybe
> I'll patent the idea if no one is doing it.
>

All I ask if you is to show me keys which work that way. You can't even
show one commercial key which does. Go ahead and patent the idea. Then
see why it doesn't work.

>
>> Why don't you come up with your own paddles using them and market
>> them? If
>> they're as good as you say, you should make a fortune.
>
> A fortune?  I don't think there is that large a market for any ham
> product. Who has made a "fortune" selling anything to hams?
>

If they're as good as you say, sure there is. Over 700K hams in the
United States alone. If even 10% of them buy one of your paddles at
$100 each, that's over $7 Million. And if it's that good I would expect
at least that percentage to buy them.

But I know you won't. You have once again shown you don't have the MSEE
you claim from University of Maryland (you really should have picked a
school more than 10 miles from my QTH - too easy to go over there and
check). Even someone with a two year technical degree understands the
problems.

But this is normal for you, Rick. Go ahead and make a fool of yourself.
I'm tired of arguing with the idiot who tries to remain anonymous
because he doesn't want people to find out he really doesn't know
anything about electronics.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

Jerry Stuckle
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 11/18/2017 1:00 PM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>
> Gents, can you please fuck off.
>

Yes, you wouldn't want an on-topic technical conversation on uk.r.a.!

[Jerry Stuckle]

That's another good point, Roger - although reed switches can easily be
connected to a wide range of voltages and impedances.

[Jerry Stuckle]

That's very interesting, Brian. I'd like to know more about his
technology, but at $429.95 I'm not in a hurry to buy a bug.

[Roger Hayter]

I didn't say stupid posts shouldn't be criiticsed, just that they
shouldn't be rejected. Different issue. Different group.

--

Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

So do I. And your position is not notably different from either of us.
Or did I just miss the underlying principle?

--

Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Roger Hayter wrote on 11/18/2017 4:04 PM:
> > Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Gents, can you please fuck off.
> >
> > If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion why join in at all?
> >
> > My personal theory as to why few commercial morse keys use reed switches
> > or optical switches is that that users like to able to connect their
> > morse keys to a wide range of voltages and impedances, especially if you
> > include traditional valve equipment. Both technologies are intolerant
> > of excessive voltages or current compared with a pair of solid metal
> > contacts. I don't think either speed, latency or debouncing are
> > significant factors or, at least, they could be designed out.
>
> Not trying to be argumentative, but I'd like to understand the basis of your
> point. Why would the three things above not be factors in using mechanical
> switches in keys? Bouncing switch contacts do pose an issue for clean
> keying of a transmitter, no? So the bouncing has to be smoothed out. That
> means adding electronics which means interface specific again, no? I
> supposed you could use a high voltage capacitor and no buffer. That would
> be a simple RC with the R in series with the key to the controlled point.

But the debouncing is likely to be in the keyed equipment rather than
the key.

By the way, i meant jitter[1], latency and that debouncing was no more
significant than for mechanical switches. So I expressed myself rather
inaccurately.

>
> Maybe I'm not grasping what you are saying. How do you see a simple
> mechanical switch being used to control many types of equipment?
>
> BTW, there are transistors available that will switch high voltages and
> currents. So a simple interface circuit would serve for use with many types
> of equipment and any type of key switch you wish to use.

[1] Not speed which is about the same as latency, but jitter due to the
analogue stimulus triggering switching at a variable point as someone
pointed out at above.

--

Roger Hayter

[rickman]

Roger Hayter wrote on 11/18/2017 7:59 PM:
> rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Roger Hayter wrote on 11/18/2017 4:04 PM:
>>> Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Gents, can you please fuck off.
>>>
>>> If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion why join in at all?
>>>
>>> My personal theory as to why few commercial morse keys use reed switches
>>> or optical switches is that that users like to able to connect their
>>> morse keys to a wide range of voltages and impedances, especially if you
>>> include traditional valve equipment. Both technologies are intolerant
>>> of excessive voltages or current compared with a pair of solid metal
>>> contacts. I don't think either speed, latency or debouncing are
>>> significant factors or, at least, they could be designed out.
>>
>> Not trying to be argumentative, but I'd like to understand the basis of your
>> point. Why would the three things above not be factors in using mechanical
>> switches in keys? Bouncing switch contacts do pose an issue for clean
>> keying of a transmitter, no? So the bouncing has to be smoothed out. That
>> means adding electronics which means interface specific again, no? I
>> supposed you could use a high voltage capacitor and no buffer. That would
>> be a simple RC with the R in series with the key to the controlled point.
>
> But the debouncing is likely to be in the keyed equipment rather than
> the key.

Is it? When you talk about working with a multitude of equipment, I would
doubt that is always true.

> By the way, i meant jitter[1], latency and that debouncing was no more
> significant than for mechanical switches. So I expressed myself rather
> inaccurately.

My point is that no one has explained why there would be an more
jitter/latency or whatever with a reed switch than with the sort of
mechanical switch made home brew. In fact, reed switches have very short
debounce and latency times. In at least one spec sheet I found they use a
number which is a fraction of a millisecond.

>> Maybe I'm not grasping what you are saying. How do you see a simple
>> mechanical switch being used to control many types of equipment?
>>
>> BTW, there are transistors available that will switch high voltages and
>> currents. So a simple interface circuit would serve for use with many types
>> of equipment and any type of key switch you wish to use.
>
> [1] Not speed which is about the same as latency, but jitter due to the
> analogue stimulus triggering switching at a variable point as someone
> pointed out at above.

I have seen no reasonable explanation of how a reed switch is any more
analog than a mechanical switch. They are both analog movements of a
mechanism. The only difference is one adjusts a magnetic field while the
other applies pressure to a spring which bends (again in an analog manner)
until it begins to make contact with another spring. Which will have more
jitter? Only a measurement will say and the reed switch has a much lower
time of bouncing, so will not possibly have a noticeable jitter in time of
actuation.

[rickman]

Jerry, I'm not going to continue to debate pointless issues with you. What
you are doing here is off-topic. I'm done with it.

You've explained nothing. You simply claim that a magnetic sensor is
somehow more analog than a mechanical sensor which is not really true. They
both have an analog part that is converted to a digital signal. No
explanation, just a claim.

>>>>>> Likewise optical is only optical in the movement of the paddle and the
>>>>>> signal seen by the detector. Once the signal passes through a threshold
>>>>>> detector with hysteresis the signal is purely digital. The strong
>>>>>> suit of
>>>>>> optical is that it eliminates all mechanical issues of wear and failure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The same is true for optical - except that optical can also be affected by
>>>>> ambient light, making the switch even less reliable.
>>>>
>>>> Lol. It is easy enough to exclude ambient light.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And how are you going to do that without restricting the motion of the
>>> paddles? Oh, I know. You have this magical whatchamacallit that creates a
>>> black hole around the sensor and doesn't let any light in, while not
>>> restricting any motion.
>>>
>>> Right.
>>
>> The mechanical force can be conveyed without light entering. I guess
>> you've never used a camera with a mechanical shutter? This wouldn't
>> require anything nearly as complex as that, but you do need to understand
>> the principle before you can see how it might be done.
>>
>
> Yes, and light enters the camera, doesn't it? You haven't explained how to
> keep the light out without restricting the paddle. Not that I expect you
> were able to do so.

Only when the shutter *allows* the light to enter which is a few
milliseconds at a time and the rest of the time the film receives so little
light it can sit there for months without the film becoming exposed.

Are you really going to argue that you can't see how to keep the light out
of a sensor if you want to?

>>>>>> I did a bit of reading about reed switches yesterday and they have much
>>>>>> less bounce time than other switches and the mercury wetted types have
>>>>>> virtually no bounce time. In fact while looking for info on typical
>>>>>> bounce times one of the pages I found showed a rather elaborate
>>>>>> circuit to
>>>>>> debounce the two mechanical switches in a keyer. If the switches were so
>>>>>> instantaneous, why would they need a debounce circuit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again it isn't the bounce that causes the problem.
>>>>
>>>> Bounce is a problem that makes the timing of the switch closure uncertain
>>>> and must be eliminated. Compensating for the uncertainly can't be done.
>>>> So what is the problem in mechanical switches if not bounce? If a switch
>>>> bounces for 5 or 10 ms, that is a significant portion of time for a 22 ms
>>>> dot.
>>>>
>>>
>>> THIS IS NOT RELATED TO BOUNCE! GET OVER IT!
>>
>> Actually, it *is* related to bounce as a debounce circuit is required and
>> typical debounce circuits create delay with undefined delays. Instead of
>> yelling what the issue isn't, how about you explain what it *is*?
>>
>
> Nope. Nothing of the sort. Debounce circuits are for a different problem.
> And I have explained the issue. You are just too full of yourself to try to
> understand it. But that's what I expect from you, Rick.

You are a trip. You actually have no interest in discussing the topic.

I'm done with this. You make up all sorts of crap rather than just discuss
a topic. Do it with someone else.

[Jerry Stuckle]

That's just like you. Rather than admit you know nothing about the
subject, you claim it's off-topic and then you won't discuss it.

I have explained it thoroughly. It's not my fault if you can't
understand simple technical issues. I would expect that from anyone who
had completed their sophomore year in an EE program. You've once again
proven your claim of having an MSEE is bullshit.

What's the matter? You can't show how it can be done so you try to say
I'm arguing? ROFLMAO! Once again you show your stoopidity.

I challenged you to show how you can do it. But you can't, so end of topic.

Yes, you are a trip. You can't discuss the topic because you have no
clue. Unlike you, I have been discussing the topic. But it takes a
modicum of technical knowledge, which means it is way over your head -
as usual.

This is more of the Rick style. You get into a topic that you know
nothing about, but rather than try to learn you say it's off topic and
I'm arguing.

But all you're doing is continuing to make a fool of yourself and
proving your claim of an MSEE is complete bullshit.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

Jerry, AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Reported to ISP for off-topic posting.

--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

+1

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
> Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Gents, can you please fuck off.
>
> If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion why join in at all?
>

One minute it's ok to have a joke on Usenet, the next it isn't. Make up
your mind, Rog! Your inconsistency is making you look vindictive, OM.

[Jim Jam ...]

> I can see why you like him.
>
>
> You liked Chaz, too.
>
>
>
>
>
>

I did ...nice guys ....

[Jim Jam ...]

> One minute it's ok to have a joke on Usenet, the next it isn't. Make up
> your mind, Rog! Your inconsistency is making you look vindictive, OM.
>

ask brian reay...he doesn't like jokes ......

[Jim Jam ...]

"Brian Howie" <Br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b1111dlm7fl7ne083...@4ax.com...

> This guy here sells optical keys.
>
> http://www.morseexpress.com/ghd/
>
> Brian GM4DIJ

here is a nice key for sale ...

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/282739246248?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649

[Spike]

On 18/11/2017 23:39, Roger Hayter wrote:

> Bernice wrote:

>> Go fuck yourself, you sanctimonious wanker!

> I didn't say stupid posts shouldn't be criiticsed, just that they
> shouldn't be rejected. Different issue. Different group.

A touch of the PKBs in the PP's post.

One suspects he needs to shed a habit or two.


--
Spike

"Once you see the RSGB logo you know that you are on the right track" -
but to what?
Publish RSGBTech's definitions of 'genuine', 'interest', 'known',
'trouble', and 'maker',
as well as the contents of the vetting policy and its supporting database.

[Brian Reay]

On 18/11/2017 22:02, rickman wrote:
> Roger Hayter wrote on 11/18/2017 4:04 PM:
>> Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Gents, can you please fuck off.
>>
>> If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion why join in at all?
>>
>> My personal theory as to why few commercial morse keys use reed switches
>> or optical switches is that that users like to able to connect their
>> morse keys to a wide range of voltages and impedances, especially if you
>> include traditional valve equipment.   Both technologies are intolerant
>> of excessive voltages or current compared with a pair of solid metal
>> contacts.  I don't think either speed, latency or debouncing are
>> significant factors or, at least, they could be designed out.
>
> Not trying to be argumentative, but I'd like to understand the basis of
> your point.  Why would the three things above not be factors in using
> mechanical switches in keys?  Bouncing switch contacts do pose an issue
> for clean keying of a transmitter, no?  So the bouncing has to be
> smoothed out.

But you also need to remove the fast switching 'edges', the circuitry
which does this will also remove the 'bounce' effects found in a
mechanical switch.

From a practical view point, worrying about 'fast' switching at the
Morse Key seems rather nugatory when you need to ensure the transmitter
isn't actually 'keyed' so 'fast' that key clicks are generated (with
their attendant problems).


As to why Morse keys haven't been 'modernised' - perhaps it is as simple
as users like the traditional approach. I still prefer a mechanical
wrist watch.


--

Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud

[Brian Howie]

On 19 Nov 2017 06:20:06 GMT, Stephen Thomas Cole

<use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:

>Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
>> Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Gents, can you please fuck off.
>>
>> If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion why join in at all?
>>
>
>One minute it's ok to have a joke on Usenet, the next it isn't. Make up
>your mind, Rog! Your inconsistency is making you look vindictive, OM.

In some cultures, being told to "fuck off" is considered abusive
rather than jocular.

Brian

[Jim Jam ...]

>
> As to why Morse keys haven't been 'modernised' - perhaps it is as simple
> as users like the traditional approach. I still prefer a mechanical wrist
> watch.
>

me too...and my nokia 1100 .......and my IC728'S.....and a nice big RWD
Mustang ......and chain driven cams...and LW ........etc

[Roger Hayter]

rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

>
> I have seen no reasonable explanation of how a reed switch is any more
> analog than a mechanical switch. They are both analog movements of a
> mechanism. The only difference is one adjusts a magnetic field while the
> other applies pressure to a spring which bends (again in an analog manner)
> until it begins to make contact with another spring. Which will have more
> jitter? Only a measurement will say and the reed switch has a much lower
> time of bouncing, so will not possibly have a noticeable jitter in time of
> actuation.

I agree that jitter is not a major issue, but I do think that with a
mechanical switch that human muscles and brain are directly part of the
analogue feedback loop controlling jitter in a way they may not be with
an intervening magnetic link. At least with a straight key, if springs
are part ot the system then your argument is more convincing. This is a
different issue from contact bounce, which occurs after the initial
contact closure.


--

Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:

> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
> > Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Gents, can you please fuck off.
> >
> > If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion why join in at all?
> >
>
> One minute it's ok to have a joke on Usenet, the next it isn't. Make up
> your mind, Rog! Your inconsistency is making you look vindictive, OM.

"Gents,can you please fuck off" is just too subtle a joke for me, I
didn't get it at first. Now you point it out it is uproariously funny.
I don't know how I could have missed that!





--

Roger Hayter

[Jim Jam ...]

"Brian Howie" <Br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:7ek21dpkmbt81gcnn...@4ax.com...

like in the near of Glasgow ......

[Jim Jam ...]

"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1nfqcra.lumgpx1jwyiioN%ro...@hayter.org...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtCG0wG-5E0

[Brian Howie]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 07:27:51 -0000, "Jim Jam ..."
<jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>
>"Brian Howie" <Br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:b1111dlm7fl7ne083...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:44:38 -0500, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Jerry Stuckle wrote on 11/18/2017 10:50 AM:
>>>> On 11/17/2017 11:20 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>
>>>> So if your ideas are so great, why
>>>> aren't there any high end manufacturers which have keys or paddles with
>>>> reed
>>>> or optical switches? If they are as good as you say, I would expect to
>>>> see
>>>> dozens of them on the market. Or maybe they know I'm right and you're
>>>> wrong.
>>>
>>>Have you done a survey of all keys on the market? I haven't. Maybe I'll
>>>patent the idea if no one is doing it.
>>
>>
>> This guy here sells optical keys.
>>
>> http://www.morseexpress.com/ghd/
>>
>> Brian GM4DIJ
>
>here is a nice key for sale

>https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/282739246248?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649
>

Ah an ornamental morse tapper. The HK102 semi-automatic I got at
Galashiels, original box and paper work, didn't look as though it had
ever been used in anger. The settings seemed alll wrong. I've been
practicing with it for 3 weeks and keep forgetting I have to make my
own dahs. I'll never be as cool as DA.

Brian GM4DIJ

[Jim Jam ...]

"Brian Howie" <Br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:7ek21dpkmbt81gcnn...@4ax.com...

hammy mens can't help having tourettes ......

[Jim Jam ...]

"Jim Jam ..." <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:XscQB.31506$bN1....@fx14.am4...

sad but hammy mens can't help it...we should be inclusive and welcome it
......

[Jim Jam ...]

"Jim Jam ..." <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:MvcQB.115139$f62....@fx25.am4...

all these Galashields hammy mens were at the Gala rally.......

[Jim Jam ...]

"Brian Howie" <Br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:0kk21d51ikajv3l6t...@4ax.com...

wish I had seen that ......these two HK808s one cost me £36 at Newbury rally
and one cost me £40 at Blackpoll.......wonder if my advert will put people
off ? ......

[mm0fmf]

On 19/11/2017 09:45, Roger Hayter wrote:
> Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>
>> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
>>> Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Gents, can you please fuck off.
>>>
>>> If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion why join in at all?
>>>
>>
>> One minute it's ok to have a joke on Usenet, the next it isn't. Make up
>> your mind, Rog! Your inconsistency is making you look vindictive, OM.
>
> "Gents,can you please fuck off" is just too subtle a joke for me, I
> didn't get it at first. Now you point it out it is uproariously funny.
> I don't know how I could have missed that!
>
>
>
>
>

You missed it because you are a hypocritical and sanctimonious cunt!

[Jim Jam ...]

"Jim Jam ..." <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:SzcQB.28054$YE1....@fx47.am4...

bloody merrycan spiel chuckers ....

[Jim Jam ...]

"mm0fmf" <no...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:ourki6$igk$1...@dont-email.me...

and you have tourettes along with your other problems ........

[Roger Hayter]

> >>hd=p3984.m1555.l2649

> >>
> >
> > Ah an ornamental morse tapper. The HK102 semi-automatic I got at
> > Galashiels, original box and paper work, didn't look as though it had
> > ever been used in anger. The settings seemed alll wrong. I've been
> > practicing with it for 3 weeks and keep forgetting I have to make my
> > own dahs. I'll never be as cool as DA.
> >
> > Brian GM4DIJ
>
> wish I had seen that ......these two HK808s one cost me £36 at Newbury rally
> and one cost me £40 at Blackpoll.......wonder if my advert will put people
> off ? ......

I'm never going to buy from someone who writes compliment instead of
complement. even ironically; it is a bad influence on those unlikely
to get the joke. Which apparently includes me.


--

Roger Hayter

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 11/19/2017 12:35 AM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

>
> Reported to ISP for off-topic posting.
>

ROFLMAO! As if you ever posted anything on topic! Stuff it, Cole.

[Bernie]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 09:45:40 +0000
ro...@hayter.org (Roger Hayter) wrote:

> Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>
> > Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
> > > Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> Gents, can you please fuck off.
> > >
> > > If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion why join in
> > > at all?
> >
> > One minute it's ok to have a joke on Usenet, the next it isn't.
> > Make up your mind, Rog! Your inconsistency is making you look
> > vindictive, OM.
>
> "Gents,can you please fuck off" is just too subtle a joke for me, I
> didn't get it at first. Now you point it out it is uproariously
> funny. I don't know how I could have missed that!

Made me laugh - LOL, even.

And, as you said:

"Isn't making people laugh a worthy objective for a moderated group?
Uram is explicitly not a technical group, and it is known for radio
amateurs to take themselves entirely too seriously."

If it's good enough for moderated, it's good enough for unmoderated,
no?

[Bernie]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 09:12:39 +0000
Spite <Arse...@male.invalid> dribbled:

> On 18/11/2017 23:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
> > Bernice wrote:
>
> >> Go fuck yourself, you sanctimonious wanker!
>
> > I didn't say stupid posts shouldn't be criiticsed, just that they
> > shouldn't be rejected. Different issue. Different group.
>
> A touch of the PKBs in the PP's post.

WHS!

> One suspects he needs to shed a habit or two.

One suspects you're a windy old cunt.

[Bernie]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 23:39:12 +0000
ro...@hayter.org (Roger Hayter) wrote:

> Or did I just miss the underlying principle?
>

Yes.

[Roger Hayter]

Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On 18/11/2017 23:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
> > Bernice wrote:
>
> >> Go fuck yourself, you sanctimonious wanker!
>
> > I didn't say stupid posts shouldn't be criiticsed, just that they
> > shouldn't be rejected. Different issue. Different group.
>
> A touch of the PKBs in the PP's post.
>
> One suspects he needs to shed a habit or two.

Are you implying he is a monk?

--

Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

Must be too subtle for me. You generally seem to be rude to everyone.

--

Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

I was talking about humour in general. Once you accept humour you
should probably not reject it on the basis of quality. But one is not
allowed to criticise the poster directly in the moderated group,
although I find jokes about diarrhoea particularly tiresome. And I
ration my replies to Gareth on policy grounds to about one a month. We
are allowed to criticise jokes here. And I think if STC had made a
point about switched and then asked our argumentative colonial friends
to desist it would have been more productive. Despite the tone and
repetive nature of the argument it is quite interesting.


There used to be keyer designs using TTL and simple dot and dash
contacts, but complex mechanical devices seem much more popular. I put
forward the theory that it is traditionalism and snobbery that leads to
electronic morse keys being remarkably unpopular. The mechanical
automatic keys are not cheap.

--

Roger Hayter