Tom: you said, "A bit of bent wire can easily work 200+ countries on 160 on CW.
Probably more so than on "digital" modes at the present time." I doubt that's
gonna happen if you're using output power in the 10-40 watt range which I
believe is what Terry was emphasizing. I found, at a JT65 web site, numerous
cautionary notes regarding keeping the output power down so as to NOT interfere
with other modes so my hat is off to that group for their "awareness" of that
facet of this mode.The original post stated, "But, on the flip side, how
excited will the latter operator be when he finds he can work DX on a band
which previously he had found impossible because he doesn't have room for that
4-square?" You replied "....or doesn't have patience or CW skill." When a ham
is constrained, in terms of land size, his/her Top Band antenna, in terms of
efficiency and effectiveness is gonna suffer and DX QSOs are going to suffer -
hell, expectations of LOTS of QSOs within the U.S. are goin
g to fall off. Most importantly, one can pretty much bet that patience and CW
skills won't be NEAR the driver(s) or influencers on an operator's "success"
that little space and the resulting less than adequate antenna will! I am with
you all on categorizing or differentiating certificates or awards based on the
operating styles or techniques of the operator! 72, Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV
> From: w8ji@w8ji.com
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:33:28 -0400
> Subject: Re: Topband: The use of digital modes on 160 metres
>
> >> The simple fact is that digimodes, thanks especially to K1JT and his
> >> excellent software, are a game changer. DX is now workable on 6m via EME
> >> (I'm not suggesting topband via the moon, in case anyone was wondering!)
> >> but also via terrestrial paths when conditions are marginal - JT65 (and
> >> its
> >> HF variant) can integrate and pull out signals that are well below
> >> ambient
> >> noise levels.
>
> So can a good CW operator.
>
> >> I can see the same happening on 160. How would you feel if you have built
> >> and 4-square and got 200+ countries, only to find someone with a bit of
> >> bent wire doing the same thing?
>
> A bit of bent wire can easily work 200+ countries on 160 on CW. Probably
> more so than on "digital" modes at the present time.
>
> But, on the flip side, how excited will
> >> the
> >> latter operator be when he finds he can work DX on a band which
> >> previously
> >> he had found impossible because he doesn't have room for that 4-square?
>
> ....or doesn't have patience or CW skill.
>
> >> It's early days yet, but as the digimodes software improves further (and
> >> it's really down to the processing power of PCs at the end of the day)
> >> and
> >> other matters like bandplanning get resolved, these are the dilemmas we
> >> will increasingly be facing. Maybe we will need two versions of 160m
> >> DXCC -
> >> one of which specifically states "SSB and CW only" or somesuch!
>
> That's a good suggestion. It really should be one award for the case where a
> human operator copies the signal, a man and his radio, and another
> certificate where a machine actually copies the signal, a man reading the
> text decoded and printed on a machine.
>
> This fits with the trend to make rewards in life increasingly less dependent
> on human effort, patience, and skill, and those who prefer to do it with
> human involvement. There should be two clear classes.
>
> But that isn't the primary issue for me. The issue for me is technical, and
> surrounds how we plan growth when some groups simply go off on their own and
> ignore bandplans and the IARU.
>
> 73 Tom
>
> _______________________________________________
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|