I side with you, Mike, on the interloping attitude of SSB! I'm a CW
afficianado as others are ---
> CC: w8ji@w8ji.com; topband@contesting.com
> From: armstrmj@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: The use of digital modes on 160 metres
> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 06:37:26 -0700
> To: rodenkirch_llc@msn.com
>
> Differentiating operating awards? If you are talking DXCC it has been
> differentiated for years. SSB award, CW award, DIGITAL/RTTY award and MIXED.
> I know this because I have them all hanging on my wall. Doing it again on
> 160 is going to be a hoot. If the 160 award isn't differentiated, then it
> should be because of all the modes to try to get DXCC, SSB (NOT CW) is going
> to be the hardest. So SSB should definitely be separate from any other 160
> award.
>
> I say the above with tongue firmly in cheek. I have the SSB DXCC for single
> bands, as well as all bands together (not 160, though), and I detest the
> mode. I definitely prefer CW since that has been *my* mode for the 52 years
> I have been a ham, as well as needing to copy it while I was in the military
> (at high speeds). No doubt I love the mode. But I love the fact that there
> are multiple modes available with which to achieve DXCC, which keeps it
> fresh. Same with multiple bands. 160 being yet another challenge for ALL
> modes. Like I said before, and I really wasn't kidding, I don't think that
> space wasting modes, like SSB, should be allowed on bands that are 300 khz or
> less in total band spread.
>
> So why isn't there the cry over SSB's unbelievable space wasting on 160? The
> answer is simple, because some folks like it. It isn't relegated to band
> area that isn't available internationally, or any other hampering move. The
> real point is that these modes exist and they are already on every band they
> are allowed. The fact that the digi guys are taking, TOTAL, the space it
> takes for one SSB contact seems to make this whole discussion a bit
> silly...... Reminiscent of a tempest in a teapot. My opinion, but there it
> is.
>
> Mike AB7ZU
>
> Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka
>
> On Sep 19, 2012, at 6:13, James Rodenkirch <rodenkirch_llc@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Tom: you said, "A bit of bent wire can easily work 200+ countries on 160 on
> > CW. Probably more so than on "digital" modes at the present time." I doubt
> > that's gonna happen if you're using output power in the 10-40 watt range
> > which I believe is what Terry was emphasizing. I found, at a JT65 web site,
> > numerous cautionary notes regarding keeping the output power down so as to
> > NOT interfere with other modes so my hat is off to that group for their
> > "awareness" of that facet of this mode.The original post stated, "But, on
> > the flip side, how excited will the latter operator be when he finds he can
> > work DX on a band which previously he had found impossible because he
> > doesn't have room for that 4-square?" You replied "....or doesn't have
> > patience or CW skill." When a ham is constrained, in terms of land size,
> > his/her Top Band antenna, in terms of efficiency and effectiveness is gonna
> > suffer and DX QSOs are going to suffer - hell, expectations of LOTS of
> > QSOs within the U.S. are
goin
> > g to fall off. Most importantly, one can pretty much bet that patience and
> > CW skills won't be NEAR the driver(s) or influencers on an operator's
> > "success" that little space and the resulting less than adequate antenna
> > will! I am with you all on categorizing or differentiating certificates or
> > awards based on the operating styles or techniques of the operator! 72, Jim
> > Rodenkirch K9JWV
> >> From: w8ji@w8ji.com
> >> To: topband@contesting.com
> >> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:33:28 -0400
> >> Subject: Re: Topband: The use of digital modes on 160 metres
> >>
> >>>> The simple fact is that digimodes, thanks especially to K1JT and his
> >>>> excellent software, are a game changer. DX is now workable on 6m via EME
> >>>> (I'm not suggesting topband via the moon, in case anyone was wondering!)
> >>>> but also via terrestrial paths when conditions are marginal - JT65 (and
> >>>> its
> >>>> HF variant) can integrate and pull out signals that are well below
> >>>> ambient
> >>>> noise levels.
> >>
> >> So can a good CW operator.
> >>
> >>>> I can see the same happening on 160. How would you feel if you have built
> >>>> and 4-square and got 200+ countries, only to find someone with a bit of
> >>>> bent wire doing the same thing?
> >>
> >> A bit of bent wire can easily work 200+ countries on 160 on CW. Probably
> >> more so than on "digital" modes at the present time.
> >>
> >> But, on the flip side, how excited will
> >>>> the
> >>>> latter operator be when he finds he can work DX on a band which
> >>>> previously
> >>>> he had found impossible because he doesn't have room for that 4-square?
> >>
> >> ....or doesn't have patience or CW skill.
> >>
> >>>> It's early days yet, but as the digimodes software improves further (and
> >>>> it's really down to the processing power of PCs at the end of the day)
> >>>> and
> >>>> other matters like bandplanning get resolved, these are the dilemmas we
> >>>> will increasingly be facing. Maybe we will need two versions of 160m
> >>>> DXCC -
> >>>> one of which specifically states "SSB and CW only" or somesuch!
> >>
> >> That's a good suggestion. It really should be one award for the case where
> >> a
> >> human operator copies the signal, a man and his radio, and another
> >> certificate where a machine actually copies the signal, a man reading the
> >> text decoded and printed on a machine.
> >>
> >> This fits with the trend to make rewards in life increasingly less
> >> dependent
> >> on human effort, patience, and skill, and those who prefer to do it with
> >> human involvement. There should be two clear classes.
> >>
> >> But that isn't the primary issue for me. The issue for me is technical,
> >> and
> >> surrounds how we plan growth when some groups simply go off on their own
> >> and
> >> ignore bandplans and the IARU.
> >>
> >> 73 Tom
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|