Possibly it's your QTH....but here in the Northeast there is no lack of CW
activity during the day...from 40 meters on up.
Having surveyed the CW scene since 1954, I notice MORE CW activity during
the day now than back in the 50's thru the 70's as there are many more
"Senior Hams" active now than then. There are also more retired folks.
It's true, you won't find many on during the day that are lower than the
age of 60, but this is normal.
Keep up the activity...keep that fist going, and keep TenTec happy!
At 10:44 AM 2/5/99 +0000, you wrote:
>With the decline of CW on the ham bands, and more in sight, would it
>really pay Ten Tec to build a modern CW only transceiver these days?
>Yes, there is a decline. I have been on CW since 1939. I can remember
>when 40 meters was ALL CW and it was crowded day and night. Even 80
>meters would yield a local QSO during a week day. A.M. Modulation was
>expensive with the large and expensive modulation transformers, and
>schemes such as heising and loop modulation worked, but had inherent
>troubles (no SSB then). Today, during a weekday, 40 and 80 meters CW is
>almost dead. During the week, even the higher frequencies don't have all
>that many CW signals on them; you have to wait until the weekend or a
>contest. But listen up on the phone bands. They are crowded. There is no
>doubt that it is just a matter of time until the Washington Powers
>extend the phone bands. No, I am not in favor of these changes. I will
>be a CW man until I die (not far off). But we cannot escape what appears
>to be reality to me.
>Looking at it from TT's point of view, it cost money to design and
>manufacture a new rig. Ten-Tec is not known for doing that every two
>years or so. The new rig must be a major seller for quite a few years to
>come. If they expect it to be more than the current crop of cheap QRP
>rigs, they better include phone. Like it or not, it's the future of ham
>radio, and it is unlikely that a moderately expensive CW only rig would
>be cost effective. Note that even Wayne Burdick's new QRP rig has SSB
>capability, and he is a CW man. Progressive looking people stay in
>I may sound like I am pushing SSB, and I AM NOT. I am just an O.F.. who
>gets very lonely during the week when looking for more than a quick DX
>contact on a weekday. I often can't sleep and find that when the higher
>bands are dead, in the middle of the night, there is very little on CW
>on the lower bands. Doubt it? Listen on 40 or 80 between two and three
>in the morning. Maybe DX, but ragchewers are had to find. You think you
>have to wait until the middle of the night to find it lonely. Try having
>a true rag chew on a weekday, during the day. Oh, you can do it. But not
>like you used to. And it is getting harder. Most of my old friends now
>set up schedules just so that we can be sure of rag-chew at those
>difficult hours. None of this appears to be happening on the phone
>bands. As a businessman I sure would not design and build a rig for
>profit with the restrictions you are asking for, although I do admit I
>like your ideas from a personal point of view.
>Just this old man's opinion, and it is worth just what you paid for it.
>Best 73, and God bless....
>James (Jim) Parsons, K5ROV USAF, Ret. Ham for 58 yrs.
>firstname.lastname@example.org ICQ-17012707 QCWA, NWQRP, Fists, ARRL
>EX: W1RLA, K5FBB, K4FEO, SV0WN (CRETE), SV0WN (RHODES),
>DL4NC, DL4JP, KA2FC (JAPAN), KA2JP (JAPAN)...and more.
>Steve Ellington wrote:
>> The trouble with IC-706's, TS-50's et-al is THEY AREN'T SIMPLE. For that
>> matter, the Scout isn't very simple either. Microprocessors and SMT
>> components have made it almost impossible for the average ham to service
>> his own equipment. What I would like to see is something on the order of a
>> scaled down version of a Triton VI. Here's what I want.
>> 1. 9 CW bands
>> 2. Tuneable front end (preselector)
>> 3. PTO (no pll's)
>> 4. 500hz cw filter (xtal ladder)
>> 5. CW only (no ssb)
>> 6. Band switch
>> 7. 50 to 100 watts
>> 8. QSK (click free and fast)
>> 9. Sidetone with a real sine wave tone
>> 10.Rugged case
>> 11.Size of a Scout
>> Steve Ellington N4LQ
>> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
>> Submissions: email@example.com
>> Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
>> Problems: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
>Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com