--- Bill Tippett wrote:
> decode a weak signal with my own ears (not eyes),
> it's not a
> genuine "QSOin my book.
I've been watching this thread for a while and mostly
agree with what everyone has been saying. What is
important to remember is that this is a HOBBY! We do
it for enjoyment, relaxation, and personal
satisfaction. Nobody pays us to "do it right".
If two guys want to make a QSO that's mostly via the
Internet that's their business, no one else. In fact
no one else has the right or the privilege to even
comment on the validity of that contact. Period. If
you contest, then you agree to a set of rules and you
are responsible for compliance and every other
contester has the right and privilege to judge you.
Some might say this is also true of the ARRL DXCC
program, but if fact, all you really need to do is
make sure your check doesn't bounce.
Bill's comment about computer aided QSO?s set me off,
because I have been exposed to this attitude quite a
bit over the last year and I find it annoying. It
shows a complete lack of understanding of how the new
digital modes work.
After a 15-year absence from the EME scene I set up
the station and began bouncing RF off the moon earlier
this year. Even though I spend 3-4 hours a day nearly
every day of the year doing low band CW, I found that
my hearing has become sufficiently impaired to make
EME not only difficult, but also physically painful
(bad headaches). So I tried digital.
What a revelation. In short, the equipment
requirements are much higher than required for CW and
the personal skills required are at least as high as
for CW albeit a different set. The computer does
nothing automatically except key the TX at the right
time for you. It "detects" something and presents it
to your eyes for final "decoding" and decision of
validity. You replace your ears with your eyes, a good
thing for us dinosaurs with degrading hearing. Are all
RTTY QSO's all the way back to the "green key" days
valid or not? Same difference.
The amount information exchanged during a JT65 QSQ
greatly exceeds the amount exchanged during a CW QSO
and actually ensures that a QSO is "more valid" than a
typical CW QSO
The ability of the software aided detection process is
often given more credit that it deserves, usually by
people that are prejudiced against. My observations
show that on day-to-day on-the-air improvements on the
order of 6-8 dB over CW. Under absolute perfect
conditions you can see much more but it's unusual.
What has all this to do with 160? Well, aside from the
need to eliminate the prejudice against guys that make
QSO's that don't meet your personal standards, there
are practical considerations that actually affect all
of us low banders. There is no free lunch. The ability
to detect low signal levels is paid for by increased
time to detect. Time to complete a perfect QSO using
JT65 is 4 minutes. Time for a FSK441 or JT6M QSO?s are
2 minutes. Poor conditions may increase that time to
hours. Compare that to a typical 160 CW QSO where you
wait hours for a QSB peak and make the QSO in a few
seconds!
As you can see, assuming you actually know how this
stuff works, these modes are not practical for low
band operation, as we know it. They don't handle
pile-ups well and they don't handle low band
propagation well. And they certainly are not
compatible with the level of impatience I see on the
low bands these days! In short, there is no danger to
the life style of anyone on 160 due to the existence
of these modes.
In short, don't make prejudicial statements with out
firsthand knowledge of what's going on. I enjoy ham
radio because I can escape the political and religious
fanatics out in the real world, I don't want to have
to put up with "mode fanatics" here. Also I hope that
by the time my hearing degrades to the point where I
can't make a CW QSO, somebody has come up with a
digital mode that's viable on 160!
73 & have fun!
Larry - W7IUV
DN07dg ? central WA
http://w7iuv.com
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
|