JWIT,
Or to put it, just what I think. Paul's description of how WSPR and FT8 can/is
automatic points out what a lot of us object to. It would not be bad IF they
had a separate class for DXCC for the digital modes just because it can be like
'shooting fish in a barrel'. Some of us have work over 40 years to build a
great DXCC total. Now FT8 comes along and apparently you can do it in a few
weeks. We are at the bottom of the sunspot cycle but when it gets good see how
long it takes to get a DXCC with FT8. People who have been around for a few
cycles know the 'work the world with a wet noodle' expression can be valid up
on 10 meters. So imagine what FT8 can do. Can that be compared to working them
yourself by hand with CW or phone?
It just should not be considered when competing with CW or SSB. It is too easy.
And automating contacts just threatens to destroy the whole basis of DXCC and
perhaps DX'ing. Make a different class for the digital modes on DXCC at try to
keep the challenge in ham radio.
That's my feeling anyhow.
Terry
KI7M
> On January 31, 2019 at 1:37 PM MICHAEL ST ANGELO <mstangelo@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> I don't understand why there is such uproar for FT-8 while some of those
> people use DX Spotting while operating. Both are computer assisted
> applications. we've been doing spotting for years.
>
> It's up to the user. I prefer CW but may use FT-8 in he future. The genie is
> out of the bottle; you can't put it back in
>
> My $0.02
>
> Mike N2MS
> _________________
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
|