[CQ-Contest] RBN Announcement on FT8 Spotting

Gordon LaPoint gordon.lapoint at gmail.com
Thu Jun 14 08:50:01 EDT 2018

     Thanks!!!   I'm still learning CW (did the CWOPS academy course 
this winter), but live in a very high noise area.   I used to do lots of 
contesting from my qth, that is no longer feasable with the high noise.  
I do some remote ops, and travel to Vermont to operate some contests.  
FT8 (and CW) allow me to make qso's from my home qth that would not be 
possible otherwise.
The RTTY contesting I used to do from home is now just not possible to 
do with the same results.  I can not hear the stations I used to.

    Some of us have switched to the FT8 and JT modes because that is the 
only way we can work some DX stations.

Gordon - N1MGO (BAMBI on RTTY)

On 06/14/2018 05:12 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
> On 6/13/2018 10:53 AM, Peter Sundberg wrote:
>> Who cares any more as FT8 is about computers talking to computers 
>> while the operator is doing - or has his mind - on other things. Ham 
>> Heaven is here according to the masses and apparently statistics. RBN 
>> is all about computers anyway. And we must make decisions based on 
>> statistics - right?
>> To be able to make use of the FT8 "Deep" functionality the computer 
>> needs the info to decode unknown callsigns that are "22 dB below the 
>> noise level".
> The above quotes are deceptive half-truths. I must say that I'm 
> getting awfully tired of the bashing of fine operating modes developed 
> by K1JT and his team that requires a lot more operator sophistication 
> than those who have never used it assume. I'm a pretty good CW op 
> (starting in 1955), but I also concentrate on station building, 
> understanding propagation, and the other aspects that contribute to a 
> successful QSO. In the recent WPX CW contest, I was in the top 4 high 
> power single-op scores from the west coast (signing KU6W). Ragchewing 
> bores me to tears.
> There are good reasons for the degree of automation that WSJT-X 
> provides for modes with short turnaround times. But a successful QSO 
> over a difficult path includes good antennas, good stations with good 
> radios, good feedlines, good switching, knowing where to point the 
> antenna, when to be working what distant QTH, knowing when propagation 
> can make it possible, picking an operating frequency within the 
> waterfall. My computer didn't make the QSO -- me, my radio, my 
> station, including my antennas made the QSO!
> I mostly use WSJT modes for QSOs I can't make another way -- mostly 6M 
> and 160M, mostly E-skip, meteor scatter, and some tropo. About two 
> months ago, I managed a QSO with 5A1AL in Libya, who running barefoot 
> with a compromise antenna; my neighbor W6GJB and I had been chasing 
> him for three years. Libya is TOUGH from the west coast of the US. I 
> think we worked him on 17M or 20M.
> I chase grids on 6M (only), and have found both JT65 and FT8 a huge 
> help. There are thousands of SSB ops living in rare grids who never 
> learned CW, but they can run FT8 and give me a QSO with 20 dB better 
> noise immunity than SSB!
> And there's another HUGE issue -- most of us are surrounded by homes, 
> each of which, including our own, are filled with noise sources that 
> cover all but the strongest signals. K1JT's modes have given hams with 
> these limitations a chance to do ham radio.
> I'm a genuine old fart, first licensed in 1955. I try to learn 
> something new every day, and in the spirit of ham radio, try to share 
> what I've learned with others. I suggest that the bashers adopt these 
> objectives.
> 73, Jim K9YC
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

Gordon - N1MGO

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list