[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] RM11708 and the Future

To: Ward Silver <hwardsil@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RM11708 and the Future
From: Charles Harpole <hs0zcw@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 07:17:50 +0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Ward, one of the blessings of living here near Bangkok is that the ham
bands ARE EMPTY.  No one cares about CW taking up half of the bands because
on any typical day there are two CW signals and one phone sig (not in
English) or just none, 160-10m.  Big contests never fill up any ham bands
to the max on any mode.
Some issues are non-issues depending on where you are.  73, Charly

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Ward Silver <hwardsil@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

Charly, HS0ZCW
CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>