K1ZM wrote:
>If modern technology can serve a purpose to HELP one take place - than I
have actually no guilt-trips or feelings of impropriety whatsoever.
I agree with much of what Jeff says, but I do draw one line that
I personally will not cross. I must actually ***hear*** a call and a
report before I call it a QSO. Why do I say this? Tree N6TR touched
on it previously (***asterisks added for emphasis***):
"Using the program Spectran, I can ***see signals that my ears can't
detect***. This gives me some idea if there is any propagation at all
into Europe, or if this is going to be one of those nights where I am
totally shut out."
I have no problem with this and in fact do the same myself sometimes
using the waterfall display in K6STI's DSP Blaster. I do it mainly to
exactly center my receiver's passband on the weak signal so I am
listening in the right place when and if it finally becomes
strong enough to be audible.
The problem I have is taking that one step further and
actually using the computer display to decode a signal at 20+
dB below the noise floor. This is basically how the QRSS mode
works that has been used for intercontinental "QSO'S" on 137 kHz.
It is also similar to how many VHF modes work such as WSJT, etc.
Are these computer-to-computer "QSO's" really valid? Not in my
book. IMHO they are little different than using the Internet...
they just happen to use RF for a computer-to-computer connection
instead of fiber optics.
Watching a computer display for a series of extremely slow
dots and dashes, typically taking an hour to complete a "QSO",
and calling that a "QSO" is not my idea of fun. If I cannot
decode a weak signal with my own ears (not eyes), it's not a
genuine "QSO" in my book.
73, Bill W4ZV
_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
|