Sandy, I guess I need to listen above 3600 more.
I know 20M can be quite a challenge duringb the DX contests when CW spread 125 khz and everyone is looking for space in the digital/RTTY area. There's grumblin' but everyone seems to make it thru 48 hours of insanity. Maybe 3600 to 3700 should be "all-mode", regardless I don't see folks taking kindly to being shoved about or out of traditional areas on the band. Thanks for your insight. Cheers, Julius n2wn --- Sandy W5TVW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If the latest FCC FPRM holds with no changes, I > think the 80 meter people will > be in trouble. So far on 80, we haven't had much of > a "digital vs. CW" > conflict. Most digital ops are above 3600 and most > CW ops below 3600 > generally speaking. The RTTY people seem to operate > the entire CW sub-band > during RTTY contests no matter what the "band plan" > happens to be. > We should be mindful that a lot of the digital types > using MFSK, PACTOR, > etc. modes, especially the "non CW" types tend to > completely ignore CW QSO's > in whaever area they populate. Some of it is > ignorance of CW ops, some > of it is just being plain rude. > Some segregation is almost demanded if the > CW/digital operations are combined > in a 100 khz. sub-band, no matter where it happens > to be. This is created by > the fact neither mode "user", in many instances, is > able to 'decode' the other's > emission. This will be even more especially true if > the FCC acts favorably > on the elimination of Morse tests from the > examinations! Therefore some > seperation plan must be implemented. ARRL and other > organizations will have > to do it as FCC couldn't be bothered as long as we > stay within the amateur service > allocations! > As "obsolete" as some people think CW/Morse > emissions are, now or in the future, > we must preserve a place for their use without other > modes capable of jamming or > over-riding CW due to wider bandwidths. Certainly > the trend is towards a lot > of the newer "GEE WHIZ" technology which requires a > plethora of additional > equipment for their use. QRP CW will probably be > here for a very long time > and is extremely popular and still capable of > serving as a system for emergency > backup communications when all the newer stuff > fails. (As happened after > the Katrina and Rita hurricanes when trunking > systems, cellphone systems, > and other "hi tech" systems went down!) > Back some sensible plan for a place for different > modes on the CW/digital > sub-band to keep interference from the modes at a > minimum. > > 73, > > Sandy W5TVW > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J F" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Elecraft Discussion > List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:39 AM > Subject: [Elecraft] 80 m CW and Digital Operation > > > | I'm not sure how crowded the 75/80M SSB band is at > any > | given time. I can speak on contest conditions on > 80 > | CW. Basically you have 3 major DX contests that > will > | pack 80 CW: ARRL DX, CQ WW DX, CQ WPX (ARRL SS > also > | packs the band on this side of the pond). DX is > all > | over the lower 100 khz of 80, so the DX window in > | effect expands. > | > | I think contest conditions in EU are probably > worse > | than in NA. More major EU contests on more > weekends, > | so there is a different set of concerns. > | > | Smaller contests in the US (QSO Parties), tend to > run > | in the 3530-3560 range. Although it can be busy, > it's > | rare that it is insane. > | > | You have a number of groups that use that area as > | well: FISTS, NAQCC, QRP to name a few. Most > respect > | the other groups activities and everyone seems to > get > | along just fine. They have been in this area for a > | long time. The area is refered to on many sites > for CW > | and QRP enthusiasts. I think that should remain > the > | case. > | > | I've not heard much digital activity between > | 3500-3600. I have heard lots of jammers, invaders > and > | general crud, particularly in the lower 25. No one > | seems to be able to police them... > | > | Frankly, I don't see why folks can't coexist > | multi-mode with the changes. Of course, I tend to > | think most folks are decent and flexible. Gradual > | changes may happen, nets will stay or relocate as > | needed. Forcing the issue will drive some away > from > | the hobby and cause bitterness in others, I don't > see > | it as productive. > | > | Also, I don't see how it can effectively be > policed, > | even if mandatory changes were made. Peer pressure > | works, if everyone signs on. Intentional jamming > is a > | big problem with many working on it, but in my 30 > | years as a ham, it seems like it has remained the > same > | or maybe become worse in some instances. > | > | As to the increase in power on the WARC bands, I > think > | it is a mistake. 30 and 17 (12 is quiet most of > the > | time now) are almost as level a playing field as > one > | can find. Even the folks with a modest station > have a > | shot at rare DX. I guess I still like skill and > luck > | versus brute force. > | > | Sorry to take up the space with my ramblings... > | > | Cheers, > | Julius > | n2wn > | _______________________________________________ > | Elecraft mailing list > | Post to: [email protected] > | You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > | Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > | http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > | > | Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > | Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > | > | > | > | -- > | No virus found in this incoming message. > | Checked by AVG Free Edition. > | Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/477 - > Release Date: 10/16/2006 > | > | > _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [email protected] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
