Hi,
There has to be a better way in FT8 to ask folks to QSY to 144.2 or
whatever.
Work them on 6M ft8 and never see them on any higher band all weekend.
No Need to use FT8 on 144, 222, and 432 MHz paths that traditionally worked
just fine on SSB or CW!
FT8 is not a cure but many times a CURSE!
73s de Tim - K7XC - DM09jh... sk
Adapt, Overcome, Succeed!
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 2:43 PM John Kludt <johnnykludt@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Why are you always so hard on those who chose to do digital? Folks who use
> digital are not necessarily idiots. Please recall that some of the digital
> modes are more sensitive than good old CW and may represent a way to extend
> ones range on the bands above 6m and 2m. In a recent test in which I
> participated on 1296 MHz we used FT8 first to establish a direct path
> contact and recorded the signal strength. One advantage of the WSJT family
> of modes is an objective signal strength relative to a standard. We then
> began shooting at some peaks we could both see and again went thorough the
> same tests recording the signal strengths. One of the objectives of all of
> this was to develop a map for future use above 1296.
>
> So isn't that in the spirit of experimentation and advancing the art and
> science of radio? I suppose we could have done that on CW or maybe SSB.
> But generating an objective written record of results would have been more
> difficult.
>
> Maybe it is time to recognize that there are a number of modes one can use
> when playing with VHF and above. Some are very old like CW (100 years old
> next year) and others are very much newer. One of the strengths of Amateur
> Radio is the there is a place for all of them as we pursue the fun that is
> our hobby.
>
> 73
>
> John
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 3:38 AM N1BUG <paul@n1bug.com> wrote:
>
> > On 9/25/19 9:38 PM, Bill Schwantes wrote:
> >
> > > As long as the "submitted logs" metric is thought to be the accepted
> > > goodness factor, we'll have a difficult time convincing anyone that
> > > anything needs fixing. Average VHF QSOs per log is decreasing. So is
> > > activity on the higher UHF bands; and those are the metrics we should
> use
> > > in discussions about changes.
> >
> > Well said! That is exactly what I have been thinking. People are
> > suggesting too simple of a metric be used. I have no doubt the
> > number of participants overall is on the rise, but if average QSOs
> > per log and activity on higher bands is decreasing, to me that is a
> > serious problem which should be discussed. Can we find solutions
> > that work? I honesty don't know, but I think the issue deserves
> > attention. We'll have a tough time of it though, due to the fact
> > that so many only do 6 and/or 2 meters and many of those only
> > digital. They, naturally, have no interest in fixing this problem.
> >
> > 73,
> > Paul N1BUG
> > _______________________________________________
> > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> >
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|