That article is flawed. It has errors and makes claims that cannot be backed up. The bottom line is that Iambic keying is more efficient, period. Where it falls down is in two areas:
1. Learning - Apparently, bug users have a hard time learning to squeeze rather than rock. 2. Timing - The timing needed to insert elements can be very tight. This is only an issue at high speed though. At normal speeds, the timing is very workable and the user can benefit from the greater efficiency. Rather than take other's words for it, I did my own analysis. Given the following sample QSO I got some real numbers: TNX FER CALL OM UR RST 579 579 NAME BILL BILL QTH BOSTON BOSTON PSE QSL VIA BURO 73 ES HPE CUL W1ABC DE W1AW SK Straight Key - 268 Bug - 201 Single Paddle - 164 Iambic - 142 In this case, the bug is 25% less closures than the straight key, the single paddle is 18.4% better than the bug and the iambic key is 13.4% better than the single paddle. The efficiency of the iambic method is no myth. Whether it is worth learning depends entirely on how able or motivated you are to learn something new. 73 all! - Keith N1AS - - K2 5411.ssb.100 - -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Tippett Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:28 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Elecraft] Iambic Keying - Debunking the Myth Iambic Keying - Debunking the Myth http://www.morsex.com/pubs/iambicmyth.pdf ... The idea that iambic keying is more efficient has been around for a long time, and few operators ever question it ... _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [email protected] 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
