John and all:
The strategy suggested here worked perfectly.
In line with John's suggestion, I wired the paddle to my liking when using
it with the TS570, and then, simply reversed the dot-dash configuration in
menu 39 of the 590. So, now my Bencher B Y 1 paddle is usable for both
rigs.
A big thanks to John for a great suggestion!
Tom Behler: KB8TYJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: reverse keying
> Maybe there's a reason but if you can reverse the paddle in the 590 but
> not
> the 570, why not switch the wires around, then set the 590 to the opposite
> setting. that seems easiest to me, no adapter to worry about, you can use
> the key you want the way you want with either radio.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Behler" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 6:38 AM
> Subject: Re: reverse keying
>
>
>> Howard:
>>
>> I tried using the paddle up-side-down, but found it to be rather
>> unweildy.
>>
>> So, for the time being, I took an old MFJ paddle that I had and reversed
>> the
>> leads. In the long run, I'm going to make an adapter as others have
>> suggested, so that I can use my Bencher either normally on the 590, or in
>> reverse on the 570.
>>
>> I just have to find the time to do it.
>>
>> Thanks to all for the great suggestions on this interesting little
>> problem.
>>
>> 73 from Tom Behler: KB8TYJ
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Howard Kaufman" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 1:14 AM
>> Subject: Re: reverse keying
>>
>>
>>> Is that different than the standard bencher? With the standard bencher,
>>> the
>>> paddle rests on the center post for the spring, and the two keying
>>> contact
>>> posts. It balances and works in a pinch. Field day for example. For
>>> long
>>> term, reverse the wires, and change the paddle settings in your other
>>> radios.
>>> I actually found the idea on this list, didn't believe it but it was
>>> rather
>>> easy to try, and it works.
>>>
>
|