The ARRL will create a new certificate. It will be new income. This is
a no brainer. They already have an FT8 mode in WAS.
I know that 3Y0X will have the ability to do FT8 with them. Like I said
earlier, when they get on 160m FT8, if they do, how many calls of people
dead against this mode will we see in the pileups...................
DX pileups should not be that much different than RTTY. They will need
to tell people to operate split, which is fine because FT decodes the
entire FT8 spectrum.
W0MU
On 10/26/2017 9:27 AM, Tim Shoppa wrote:
Quoting ARRL Contest Update for October 18 2017:
"FT8 mode usage continues to increase! According to a tweet by Michael,
G7VJR, operator of Club Log, "In September 2017, the number of FT8 QSOs
uploaded to Club Log was the same as CW and SSB combined." (Bengt, K7ADD)"
DXCC concept of "by mode" awards has been reworked several times in the
past 70 years and I don't see why it can't be reworked again.
In 1940 only 4 hams had "radiotelephone" DXCC.
It wasn't until the mid-1970's that they made a certificate for CW.
I'm not sure when RTTY DXCC Certificate began but it morphed into "Digital"
in 2011.
I do a lot of RTTY contesting and think I've built up a good skillset for
that particular mode.
I've made a few dozen FT8 QSO's, kinda have the basic hang of it, but I'm
sure the FT8 experts know more than me about how to work rare DX with it.
When we get a truly rare dxpedition using FT8 they will have to manage the
pileup somehow, I'm actually looking forward to see what operating
practices are adopted.
Tim N3QE
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Nick Maslon - K1NZ <k1nz@arrl.net> wrote:
Hi Dale,
My comments were more aimed at the "let's separate FT/JT modes into their
own separate DXCC category and disqualify them from Mixed" sentiment. I
have no problem with the per mode style DXCC awards. I just wanted to point
out that someone can't retroactively change the definition of Mixed because
they don't like a specific mode being in there. I guess I wasn't as clear
as I could have been in my phrasing.
73,
Nick K1NZ
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Dale Putnam <daleputnam@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Nick,
Not necessarily needed retraction. Not at all..
It seems to me that a solely one more or other.. is called for, also,
a mixed mode, already in place, with any or all of a mix of modes.
These are all digi modes that I am speaking of.
Pretty much the same as "phone" awards.. doesn't care if it is FM voice,
SSB voice, or AM voice.
Neither would the "digi" award.. but the difference would be noted with a
single mode cert.
Have a great day,
--... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy
"Actions speak louder than words"
1856 - Abraham Lincoln
------------------------------
*From:* Topband <topband-bounces@contesting.com> on behalf of Nick
Maslon
- K1NZ <k1nz@arrl.net>
*Sent:* Thursday, October 26, 2017 8:58 AM
*To:* topband@contesting.com
*Subject:* Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant
alongside FT-8? (long)
I just have one question about your suggestion about creating a "new"
digi
DXCC award and excluding JT/FT modes from mixed. Are those people (myself
included) who have applied JT/FT credit to their Mixed award and received
it as such going to have to mail the certificate back to the League and
have the award retracted? It will be difficult to retroactively create a
"new" award without including every mode in mixed, which by definition is
mixed. Creating a "Mixed but without JT/FT modes" DXCC is getting into
the
splitting hairs and logistics nightmare ballpark.
PS. I am also one of the <30 crowd.
73,
Nick K1NZ
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
TopBand Mail List Archives - contesting.com
<http://www.contesting.com/_topband>
www.contesting.com
Topband Mailing List Archives. Search String: [How to search] Display:
...
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|