I know for the year or so I was very active on TB JT65, that I
never once EVER ( I am an east coast station aswell ) worked a single
station In Europe, or any other DX excluding Canada. Not even Mexico on
JT65 or any other 'digital mode'. I truly believe that the dream of regular
DX on 160m JT65 would only be accomplished on a regular or even
semi-regular basis with 2 stations that are slightly below ' Barely
adequately ' equipped, or better. However, many many MANY 160m JT65 Ops are
not even that well equipped, ( myself INCLUDED ). Hence why I tossed the
illusion that JT65 would provide me with a minimalist QSO exchange ,
frequently, during the better propagating months. As soon as I switched
into CW , when there WAS prop, qso exchanges were faster & more reliable (
for DX contacts ) in the event of decent propogation, due to the mass of
goo in between my ears, than most 'weak sig' JT65 160m qso's dx or not.
Fact being , for a reliable JT65 qso, it is frequently necessary for a
signal to not be affected by long fades of QSB, sometimes as most of us
know, lasting minutes, this is common place for many of us with out the
ideal, close to ideal or even adequate receiving set ups. As you can see I
have not left out the exceptions here, I'm sure there are some 160M JT65
ops, with long beverages, HI-Z's, Pennants & flags ect ect, as well as
efficient radiators & the like, however they are NOT the majority. With
this being said, even myself having done JT65 ALOT on 160m, with a sub sub
par station, it is NOT fair of me to continue to, or others to subject
people whom can, efficiently utilize the spectrum due to our limitations,
without being subject to frequent, occasional, or rare spurious
transmissions, intentional or not. Those of us whom share in my belief of
my past definition of a less than adequate 160m station, are in fact in my
personal belief 'experimenting' on 160m JT65, due to not having, being
limited to, or knowing how to deploy adequate & efficient stations.
There is much room for interpretation in the phrases I have
used, as I'm sure many will want to mince words & hop into the semantics ,
( that solves or educates nothing / anyone ) fact is, if you or I are
experimenting on 160 jt65 ( like I was, yes I am admitting my own actions
here and lots of it ), I belong in the portion of the band devoted for such
uses, Digital or Experimental. Addressing the DX contacts, I would be
willing to bet that over 99.5% of successful JT65 QSO's , on the 160M band
are not Transoceanic or DX contacts. The possibility of such QSOs, should
not be the deciding factor on JT65 or any digital transmissions being
allowed there. This in fact, may be completely opposite from other bands
during the colder months, such as 80m, where I personally found, these
QSO's are much easier with..a poorly equipped station ( that is in the
digital segment of the band ). I will add, it took me many conversations
with multiple people to follow this belief that I now have, and even tho it
is possible that 'massive , huge, daily, & constant' interference may not
be the norm, why risk the chance?
I stand by the belief that if properly presented, with facts, in
a non condescending manor, seeking to educate those like myself whom are,
may be or are slightly ignorant on the possibility of an issue here, that
the possibility of continued, additional or further interference issues ,
can be drastically reduced. There is also the Manufacture of goods (
transmitters ) side of things too, which is just as much of an issue,
however that's where the education & sharing of knowledge with others comes
into play. For the majority of us being not able to change our technical
specifications of our transmitters sending base band audio tones in a SSB
mode today, the only thing that can change today, is how & where we choose
to use them.
I dont believe that the majority of Digi-ops would have issues
with this , as most are there to check things out n see if they 'can do
this' or not. Many, are infact chasing paper or personal goals if that is
the case, such as I was when active. So, in the quest to achieve these
goals within our shared hobby , their information stream is given to them,
threw the web, word of mouth, clubs & publications, just like the rest of
us. If they have no access to factual information regarding the
possibilities of such spurious emissions, is it shame on them for
utilizing their mode of interest there, where suggested by their interest
group(s) and or peers or shame on us, for not educating & informing those
whom have chosen to share their information with like minded individuals?
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Mike Armstrong <armstrmj@aol.com> wrote:
> All..... herein lies THE major problem with putting the digital guys
> elsewhere. JT-65 (and others of that ilk) are NOT ragchew modes. They are
> really only useful for award chasing since what is sent is pretty much
> limited to calls, locations and signal strengths. The guys using these
> modes (the JT series) aren't having lengthy conversations. So shuttling
> them off to places that are used mainly for chewing the rag doesn't do them
> any good at all. They are chasing states and DX.
>
> For anyone not familiar with the actual "content" of a JT65 QSO, go to the
> WSJT web site and take a look. As I mentioned, the QSO "content" is pretty
> limited and meant for a specific purpose..... making and confirming a
> qso...... and that is about it. I don't want to start a firestorm on
> ragchewing vs contest-type qsos..... I just wanted to inform those who may
> be unfamiliar with these modes that their purpose is TRULY dxing and state
> chasing, for lack of a better way to explain them.
>
> Fair Winds
> Mike (AB7ZU)
>
> Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka
>
> > On Jan 2, 2014, at 13:16, Chris G3SVL <chris@g3svl.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 02/01/2014 18:20, Shoppa, Tim wrote:
> >> I think we could encourage use of ARRL band plan, by not complaining
> when digital modes show up in 1800-1810.
> > Tim,
> >
> > That doesn't help those of us in Region 1 who don't have access to 1800
> - 1810?
> >
> > 73 & HNY
> >
> > Chris, G3SVL
> >
> > _________________
> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|