[digitalradio] Contesters and DXers should use busy detectors
All contesters and DX pileup participants should use busy detectors! This is quite evident since it has been proven that such types of operation are the source of 99% of harmful interference and intentional interference on the HF ham bands. Manual methods of busy detection have been proven to be devoid of merit. Contesters and DX pileup technologists can start developing the DX/Contest Busy Detector with SSB and PSK and RTTY and CW, the most common modes. When they have a busy detector that is proven to work during contests and pileups, then the remaining 1% of rare other modes and other types of operation that are normally the recipient of harmful interference and intentional interference can consider adopting the tried and proven DX/contest Busy Detector. The 1% rare mode operators should continue to use the present methods that have proven to have a high probability of not causing harmful or intentional interference. Put your money where your mouth is. Develop a busy detector for DX/contesters. If your busy detector is successful in preventing the vast majority of harmful and intentional interference of contests and DX pileups, then the rest of the ham community can widely adopt it. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Contesters and DXers should use busy detectors
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:29:13 -, expeditionradio expeditionra...@yahoo.com said: All contesters and DX pileup participants should use busy detectors! This is quite evident since it has been proven that such types of operation are the source of 99% of harmful interference and intentional interference on the HF ham bands. Manual methods of busy detection have been proven to be devoid of merit. Contesters and DX pileup technologists can start developing the DX/Contest Busy Detector with SSB and PSK and RTTY and CW, the most common modes. I see your point, but 2001 has come and gone and we still have no HAL9000's to say can't let you do that OM when the SSB operator keys his microphone. However, a busy detector could have a fighting chance in unattended digital operation. [snip] -- 73, Stelios, M0GLD.
Re: [digitalradio] Contesters and DXers should use busy detectors
Hi Bonnie I don't always agree with you , but this time I am with you 100%. The frequency spectrum is a limited resource and it is completely unacceptable that an over-crowded group of so-called contesters are allowed to squeeze out other hams from the bands. No Skip KH6TY , I don't want to apologize for my point of view . I have been told to piss off so many times, especially from RTTY contesters, when I have been testing new modes so that for me contesting is a big plague. I should probably let this go, but there's nothing that makes me more angry than contesting. LA5VNA S contesting is a plague. expeditionradio wrote: All contesters and DX pileup participants should use busy detectors! This is quite evident since it has been proven that such types of operation are the source of 99% of harmful interference and intentional interference on the HF ham bands. Manual methods of busy detection have been proven to be devoid of merit. Contesters and DX pileup technologists can start developing the DX/Contest Busy Detector with SSB and PSK and RTTY and CW, the most common modes. When they have a busy detector that is proven to work during contests and pileups, then the remaining 1% of rare other modes and other types of operation that are normally the recipient of harmful interference and intentional interference can consider adopting the tried and proven DX/contest Busy Detector. The 1% rare mode operators should continue to use the present methods that have proven to have a high probability of not causing harmful or intentional interference. Put your money where your mouth is. Develop a busy detector for DX/contesters. If your busy detector is successful in preventing the vast majority of harmful and intentional interference of contests and DX pileups, then the rest of the ham community can widely adopt it. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
RE: [digitalradio] Contesters and DXers should use busy detectors
AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of expeditionradio Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 4:29 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Contesters and DXers should use busy detectors All contesters and DX pileup participants should use busy detectors! All contesters and DX pileup participants *have* busy frequency detectors: their ears. This is quite evident since it has been proven that such types of operation are the source of 99% of harmful interference and intentional interference on the HF ham bands. Please provide or cite this proof. Manual methods of busy detection have been proven to be devoid of merit. Contesters and DX pileup technologists can start developing the DX/Contest Busy Detector with SSB and PSK and RTTY and CW, the most common modes. When they have a busy detector that is proven to work during contests and pileups, then the remaining 1% of rare other modes and other types of operation that are normally the recipient of harmful interference and intentional interference can consider adopting the tried and proven DX/contest Busy Detector. The 1% rare mode operators should continue to use the present methods that have proven to have a high probability of not causing harmful or intentional interference. Put your money where your mouth is. Develop a busy detector for DX/contesters. If your busy detector is successful in preventing the vast majority of harmful and intentional interference of contests and DX pileups, then the rest of the ham community can widely adopt it. The above is one more instance of a bogus argument you and others have long made: because some contesters and DXers cause QRM, all unattended automatic stations are entitled to cause QRM. By the same logic, you could claim that because some contesters and DXers splatter, all unattended automatic stations are entitled to splatter. Or that all unattended automatic stations are entitled to operate with 5 KW, or are entitled to operate out of their licensed band segments. This attitude is cynical and destructive. Amateur radio involves the shared use of limited spectrum among users with diverse interests. This has worked through a combination of sensible rules, useful guidelines, and generally good judgment on the part of individual operators. However, when one group decides that their interest is superior to all others, and that they are therefore free to ignore the rules and guidelines, the result is chaos and frustration -- as we've seen over the past several years. You have made it clear that you consider the use of amateur radio to make random contacts to be archaic. That's fine; you are entitled to you use our shared spectrum however you see fit -- as long as you obey the rules and guidelines so that you do not prevent those with different interests and perspectives from using that same spectrum. Deploying unattended automatic stations that cannot determine whether or not they will QRM an on-going QSO before transmitting is a blatant violation of our service's rules, guidelines and ethics; justifying this behavior by arguing that some human operators violate these rules is the antithesis of the principles underlying amateur radio. As I'm sure you know, two wrongs do not make a right. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
