I hit enter by mistake, but that sum's it up from my perspective.
-Steve Raas
N2JDQ
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Steven Raas <sjraas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
|