By any objective measure, I am probably a certified geezer, too :-)
I see CW as a viable, useful mode - regardless of whether it's fun or
not - for a variety of things. It's simple to build CW rigs, requires
no supporting systems to decode or generate, and crams all of the energy
into a minimum bandwidth - it's the most efficient mode that can be
copied by a human. I wouldn't call it a "Model T" - I consider it more
of a "Jeep" ('48 Willys in four-wheel drive?).
That said, setting aside fully half of the available data sub-band for
it (and RTTY) is not justified on any number of considerations. Band
usage by the different modes should ebb and flow with need,
effectiveness, and preference. If there's a big CW contest on, I expect
to hear lots of signals up to the edge of the data/RTTY sub-band and
beyond. When Bouvet comes on, I suspect the data stations will
experience radiation pressure from thousands of CW geezers having fun.
Other times, I have no problem with data modes filling up the otherwise
unused space and requiring CW operators to tune around the band. I am
fully willing to mix it up and compete - that's what we're supposed to
be doing according to 97.1.
73, Ward N0AX
On 8/23/2016 6:00 PM, Charles Harpole wrote:
Ward, I would like to have a Model T, not because it is "up to date"
but because IT IS FUN.
Lots of hams are old; old is fun, too.
73, Charly
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Ward Silver <hwardsil@gmail.com
<mailto:hwardsil@gmail.com>> wrote:
First, I do agree with N9NB that there needs to be a bandwidth
limit in the amateur bands - this has been confirmed by the FCC in
numerous communications and opinions about overly-wide phone
signals and also by 97.307(f)(1) which limits the modulation index
of angle-modulated phone emissions to less than 1 at the highest
modulating frequency. Clearly, the idea of a maximum bandwidth is
considered good practice in the phone sub-bands and a similar
limit in the RTTY/data sub-bands does not need to strangle
technical innovation. Nevertheless, it is not sufficient to rely
on the "necessary" and "good practice" wording in 97.303(1)
because neither is strong enough to be meaningful without creating
endless arguments and perceived loopholes. So just place a
reasonable "roofing bandwidth" on amateur radio emissions below 30
MHz - 3 kHz? 6 kHz? 10 kHz? - and let us sort it out as we do
every day!
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|