Differentiating operating awards? If you are talking DXCC it has been
differentiated for years. SSB award, CW award, DIGITAL/RTTY award and MIXED.
I know this because I have them all hanging on my wall. Doing it again on 160
is going to be a hoot. If the 160 award isn't differentiated, then it should
be because of all the modes to try to get DXCC, SSB (NOT CW) is going to be the
hardest. So SSB should definitely be separate from any other 160 award.
I say the above with tongue firmly in cheek. I have the SSB DXCC for single
bands, as well as all bands together (not 160, though), and I detest the mode.
I definitely prefer CW since that has been *my* mode for the 52 years I have
been a ham, as well as needing to copy it while I was in the military (at high
speeds). No doubt I love the mode. But I love the fact that there are
multiple modes available with which to achieve DXCC, which keeps it fresh.
Same with multiple bands. 160 being yet another challenge for ALL modes. Like
I said before, and I really wasn't kidding, I don't think that space wasting
modes, like SSB, should be allowed on bands that are 300 khz or less in total
band spread.
So why isn't there the cry over SSB's unbelievable space wasting on 160? The
answer is simple, because some folks like it. It isn't relegated to band area
that isn't available internationally, or any other hampering move. The real
point is that these modes exist and they are already on every band they are
allowed. The fact that the digi guys are taking, TOTAL, the space it takes for
one SSB contact seems to make this whole discussion a bit silly......
Reminiscent of a tempest in a teapot. My opinion, but there it is.
Mike AB7ZU
Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka
On Sep 19, 2012, at 6:13, James Rodenkirch <rodenkirch_llc@msn.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> go
in
> 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
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|