Oliver,
There are many, many things that were thought to kill ham radio,
or your favorite ham radio niche. In no particular order and
far from complete:
Spark
CW
QRQ
QSK
AM
Heising Modulation
Controlled Carrier Modulation
SSB
FM
RTTY
Packet
Amtor
Pactor
Winlink
PSK31
PSK63
MSFK8
MSFK16
M-RTTY
EME
DXers
DXpeditions
Holiday DXpeditions
Contesters
Assisted-contesting
Multi-operator contesting
Computer logging
Lids
Kids
Space Cadets
Nets
OQRS
PayPal
Ebay
Ragchewers
Computers
Not enough computers
Too many computers
Not enough sunspots
Too many sunspots
Windows
Windows 7
Windows 10
Apple
iPad
Microsoft
Linux
Android
MacOS
Lowband operators
VHF operators
Repeater operators
Satellite operators
Microwave operators
Parks on the Air
Islands on the Air
Summits on the Air
PacketCluster
AR-Cluster
LotW
DXCC
5B-DXCC
DXCC Challenge
WAS
VUCC
WAZ
ARRL
CQ Magazine (didn't want them to feel left out by ARRL on the list)
73 Magazine (everyone is SK, so we shouldn't get any pushback)
Propagation is not good enough - I can't hear people I want to talk to.
Propagation is too good - I can hear people I don't want to talk to...
K1MAN - OK, we could remove this as the odious little man (Glenn
Baxter) is SK, but where's the fun in that??
Ebay
QRZ.COM
QTH.COM
FCC
Appliance operators
CB guys
California kilowatts
Incentive licensing
QRP
QRO
QRM
QRN
DQRM
Using a Sideswiper
Using Paddles
Using a straight Key
Using A Bug
Using A Bug as a Straight Key
Using a Keyer
Kenwood
Yaesu
Icom
Elecraft
Collins
Tall towers
No towers
Tower Rules
Dayton
Xenia
JT65
JT9
FT8
FT4
K1JT
DMR
C4FM/System Fusion/Wires-X
D-STAR
EchoLink
IRLP
Remote Stations
RemoteHams
Remote Ham Radio
TVI
BCI
Amplifiers
Big Antennas
Little Antennas
OMs
YLs
XYLs
Harmonics
Sub-Harmonics
Solid-State
Tubes
Integrated Circuits
SDRs
and countless more real and imagined threats
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oliver Dröse" <droese@necg.de>
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 8:05:25 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Impact of FT* Modes on DXpeditions
What about going back to spark transmissions or AM when talking about
phone? Wasn't SSB such an huge advantage over AM some decades ago? What
about code readers? Computer generated & read RTTY instead of huuuge
teleprinter machines? I wonder if there were similar discussions back
then ...
Technology is advancing, guys. Nothing you can do about it. Yes, I'm
using the FTx modes, too, although I prefer CW & SSB, absolutely. But
ignoring it won't bring you any further. And, believe it or not, the FTx
modes themselves are not the problem. The users are! Using it fully
automated has indeed nothing to do with amateur radio anymore and should
not be given any credit at all. Period. But it's almost impossible to
track ...
Anyway, if you really insist on showing how great you are using non-FTx
modes, why not apply for DXCC-CW or SSB then? The FTx guys won't
influence your standings there. ;-)
73, Olli - DH8BQA
Contest, DX & radio projects: https://www.dh8bqa.de/
Am 16.08.2019 um 16:21 schrieb robert:
> GM Ria
>
> A few comments:
>
> I have no information and did not comment on "conspiracies
> about it
>
> being a money thing "
>
> Your achievements are very nice. Did you use Low Power?
>
> Were FT8 part of this ? During the 6 months of my using FT8
>
> about 1 1/2 years ago I could not believe the number of YB's
> and other
>
> rare DX that were easily worked on 40 meters. Is it really
> fair for so many
>
> other many hams trying for a decent number of DXCC countries for
>
> years to all of a sudden see others with high country totals
> using FT8
>
> after just a couple years ?
>
> FT8 certainly has it's place in ham radio, but the ARRL
> DXCC program
>
> needs a serious new look when it comes mixing up FT8 with CW,
>
> SSB, and RTTY.
>
> 73 BoB WA1FCN
>
> On 8/15/2019 8:32 AM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
>> It took me 13 years to get 327 DXCC, challenge 1900+ and 9 band DXCC
>> including 160. I did my first DXCC in one year from a mobile station
>> with a 6 foot whip.
>>
>> I did most of it on CW.
>>
>> I really don’t see how FT8 made it any easier.
>>
>> The reason it takes so little time now is because of the DX cluster
>> and all of the data aggregation tools.
>>
>> The game changes, and if anything FT8 has made it harder for those of
>> us who can just get in/out of a CW/SSB pileup because we developed
>> that skill. But it has made DX possible for those who live in
>> apartments and other heavily restricted places.
>>
>> At the League we discuss this and the consensus generally is that FT8
>> is popular and brings in new operators. It’s a good thing. Separating
>> them would tell ops who operate this mode that they are somehow not
>> real hams or real DXers which is not a message to be sending.
>> Especially since the average age of DXers is trending higher.
>>
>> The conspiracies about it being a money thing really aren’t valid. If
>> anything processing the increased volume of QSLs and LoTW server load
>> costs the League money, so it’s definitely not a money maker.
>>
>> 73
>> Ria
>> N2RJ
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:08 AM robert <wa1fcn@charter.net
>> <mailto:wa1fcn@charter.net>> wrote:
>>
>> GM Matts/Yuri
>>
>> I agree with you about the ARRL's DXCC credit system.
>>
>> A mistake for sure. As a life long low power operator
>> it has
>>
>> taken me 54 years to reach 40 meter DXCC of 280. By
>> allowing
>>
>> FT8 credits mixed in with every thing I foresee in the
>> near
>> future,
>>
>> many achieving this in 10 years or less of effort. At
>> the
>> next sun spot
>>
>> cycle peak high DXCC totals on 10, 12, and 15 will be
>> meaningless. I
>>
>> know of hams who no longer take part in DXCC for just
>> this reason.
>>
>> FT8 credit for DXCC is fine, but keep it separated from
>> single
>> band/mixed
>>
>> mode totals.
>>
>> 74 BoB WA1FCN
>>
>> On 8/15/2019 1:30 AM, Mats Strandberg wrote:
>> > I tend to agree with Yury.
>> >
>> > CY9 was much more balanced between modes, than the 3D2 (or least
>> that was
>> > my perception).
>> >
>> > It might be so that at the time of John’s (GD) participation in
>> KP5 and
>> > KP1, that there was no ambition to maximize the revenue through
>> donations
>> > (before, during and after the expedition). I don’t question that.
>> >
>> > However, since FT8 appeared as an equal mode for DXCC (along
>> with CW,SSB
>> > and RTTY), it definitely has changed some expeditions into
>> becoming
>> > automated QSO/QSL-creating machines...
>> >
>> > John, during KP1/KP5, the FT modes were not available, so
>> comparison might
>> > not be fully relevant.
>> >
>> > It is maybe good that FT8 will bring new “DXers” to the table,
>> but the
>> > appearance of this dull mode... has forever changed the feeling
>> of “being
>> > on the other side of the expedition”, and most likely also,
>> being an
>> > operator of that expedition as well.
>> >
>> > I question myself, what is the pleasure of being that rare DX,
>> giving out
>> > the ATNOs and the new band points, when the reality is that NO
>> operator
>> > skills are required from me to make those “contacts” happen!
>> >
>> > Before, good DX-expeditions we’re separated by less good ones,
>> because of
>> > operator skills. How wonderful was it not to listen to great
>> operators,
>> > handling thousand of callers, to maximize the number of contacts
>> and happy
>> > DXers on the other side?
>> >
>> > Those days were interesting and a memory of our past. The new
>> FT8 euphoria
>> > has forever changed the perception of DX-big, thanks to ARRL’s
>> greed for
>> > award revenue ;(
>> >
>> > And, what we now see is the result of the wrong decision to
>> equalize FTx,
>> > JT and other artificial modes, with RTTY, SSB and CW, and accept
>> them for
>> > DXCC Mixed.
>> >
>> > The correct way would have been to create FT/JT DXCC separate
>> from Classic
>> > DXCC...
>> >
>> > DXCC as we all knew it, has been hurt tremendously by ARRL
>> unthoughtful
>> > decision to accept FT/JT in Mixed!
>> >
>> > 73 de RM2D (Mats)
>> >
>> > On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 05:14, John Crovelli <w2gd@hotmail.com
>> <mailto:w2gd@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I want to take a moment to dispel the notion suggested by Yuri
>> that
>> >> DXpedition operating strategy is all about financial
>> considerations. It
>> >> simply isn't for well planned operations.
>> >>
>> >> It is the intent of virtually every DXpedition to provide an
>> opportunity
>> >> for those running 100 watts or more to work an ATNO.
>> DXpeditions teams are
>> >> constantly considering ways to reach the broadest possible
>> audience while
>> >> on site.
>> >>
>> >> The implication that operating strategy and mode selection is
>> all about
>> >> post operation donations (to cover costs) is just not true.
>> Well organized
>> >> teams have these issues resolved well in advance.
>> >>
>> >> I've been on some large DXpeditions (KP5 and KP1 - both were
>> top ten
>> >> world). Our operating teams NEVER set goals based upon
>> donations, and in
>> >> fact, this issue was never even discussed since no one felt it
>> to be
>> >> important. Again, financing issues were resolved well before
>> we ever
>> >> departed for the islands.
>> >>
>> >> We did however (on a daily basis) take stock of propagation,
>> probably of
>> >> openings, and how we were providing global coverage ... to
>> prevent missing
>> >> opportunities to those regions traditionally most difficult.
>> As a tool,
>> >> FT8 can be useful.
>> >>
>> >> FT8 modes are providing options not previously available and
>> for the most
>> >> part now replaces RTTY activity. It is my expectation CW and
>> SSB will
>> >> always be the main modes for DXpeditions.
>> >>
>> >> John, W2GD aka P40W/P44W
>> >>
>> >> ________________________________
>> >> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
>> <mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com>> on behalf of Yuri <
>> >> ve3dz@rigexpert.net <mailto:ve3dz@rigexpert.net>>
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 4:57 PM
>> >> To: 'Jeff Clarke' <ku8e@ku8e.com <mailto:ku8e@ku8e.com>>;
>> cq-contest@contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> <
>> >> cq-contest@contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>>
>> >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
>> >>
>> >>>>> Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are
>> putting FT8
>> >> first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this
>> isn't the
>> >> future of ham radio.
>> >>
>> >> I might not be politically correct, but why not to mention that
>> one of the
>> >> all of the DXpeditions' goals is to try to maximize the overall
>> QSO count
>> >> in order to get more donation? That's what hiding behind "best
>> kept secret"
>> >> (that everybody knows) of F/H mode in FT8 in my opinion.
>> >> I'm not saying it's bad or good, but it's a fact.
>> >> Multi-channel streams need to be prohibited, otherwise it looks
>> like
>> >> hypocrisy.
>> >> I still remember how the rules for M/S in the ARRL Contests
>> were changed
>> >> under the pressure after PJ4G(?) team managed to have 2
>> stations on the
>> >> same band (even not at the same time).
>> >>
>> >> Yuri VE3DZ
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
>> <mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com>] On Behalf Of
>> >> Jeff Clarke
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 10:51 AM
>> >> To: cq-contest@contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
>> >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
>> >>
>> >> Didn't someone create a FT8 contest reflector? It would be nice
>> to take
>> >> all these comments over there. Seems like FT8 is monopolizing
>> the contest
>> >> reflector just like it is on the air.
>> >>
>> >> Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are
>> putting FT8
>> >> first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this
>> isn't the
>> >> future of ham radio.
>> >>
>> >> BTW I do operate some FT8 because I'm working on a the digital
>> DXCC.
>> >> (because there is hardly any RTTY activity outside of contests)
>> Now that
>> >> I've reached 100 countries I'm starting to get bored with it.
>> >>
>> >> Jeff
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
>> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
>> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > CQ-Contest mailing list
>> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> ---
> Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
> http://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|