> > ..........I can tell you first hand, that you'll > > make the job of Jim and the BTC more > > difficult by using the term on this list. ....
> Let Jim tell you about the recent response/refusal to > a DX test from a CE at a station (which shall remain > un-named, of course) who considers DXers who log a > station by copying Morse Code to be "cheaters". Well, he hasn't, AFAIK. I suppose it Had to Happen. I look forward to perhaps reading about this. Jim ?? Probably a ham who has learned that contacting hams at a great distance using CW is much easier (if you know the code) than to copy his/her voice, all else being equal. The 10 to 1 reduction in bandwidth for CW is part of the answer. I'd bet this is more common than you would imagine. It is based on the premise that the station should be received and logged in the mode in which it is intended to operate. IOW, an AM double sideband modulated station should be logged using AM detection (which could be diode or synchronous, but it is logging the station by detecting its voice sidebands audibly, and listening to the spoken recovered output by ear, as any listener would do). I've posted on this several times. Logging a station based on that premise, in order to "count it as an AM station logging" is one thing. Hearing a CW ID in AM mode (when the station transmits a CD of an audio code ID or sweep tone) pushes the limit of what an AM station is expected to do. I think many DXers are satisfied with counting their loggings that way, i.e. hearing a MCW ID. And, yes, I've done it. A _true_ CW ID is done by pulsing the carrier on and off and using the BFO. What we are doing is MCW, pulsing a _tone_ on, and off with a constant carrier. A further "reach" is when the DXer detects the sideband __IN CW MODE__ (BFO on, 300 Hz bandpass filter, tuned exactly to the sideband of the tone, optimally 3000 Hz or greater, to escape the normal AM sideband hash). A lot of DXers probably would have trouble even getting that to work. It is certainly way beyond the scope of what an as-intended AM station signal reception would be all about. It's useful if you want to just get an indication of what kind of propagation is happening. I guess some would "count it" and some not. My own preference would be to Not count it, but then I stopped "counting" stations, as being sort of meaningless, in the 1970's. I like the GPN model of pushing the limits technically, as distinct from just "counting" as a "logging", so you can claim X and then X+1 "loggings". Then there is the question of "counting" the (then) wobbling KFI carrier using Spectran, a few years ago. No sane person would "count" that as a "logging" partly because the opportunity does not exist to be equally able to "count" any other signal on the same frequency. That's because none of the others have a distinct artifact (a voice ID would be a distinct artifact) allowing it to be uniquely identified. After all, the idea that the KFI carrier could then be visually identified, ONLY because of its unique temporary defect, is interesting in a technical sense because it lets one determine how often that carrier might be present at a distant location, all very useful information, but it is in no way valid for a "logging" when none of the other signals have an equally reasonable chance of being identified in the same manner. Don't forget that the KFI situation then depended on a transmitter defect, (wobbling oscillator) that is not part of the intended manner in which the station operates. To prove this, listen to 640 from the east at 0700L in Dec., you might see 10 or over 10 distinct carrier lines, but, if you have done no prior research (AM DXing by sound requires none, to be successful) then you honestly now have no idea which of those carrier lines is which station, and you can't "log" _any_ of them. You can just infer identities based on such things as a trace appearing or disappearing at the known s/on or s/off time of a particular station, as UK DXers have done with South American signals on 1470 etc. It's all stuff I think is fascinating and has high value. I suppose a true purist in this model would not even count a signal heard at night, using its daytime facility, as it is also not part of the way the station is intended to operate. No easy answers. Don't forget that GPN used SAH recovery and PFM data as a pointer to possible future reception of seldom heard signals, which would then be logged audibly in the normal manner, and not as a way to "log" by SAH reception alone. - Bob _______________________________________________ IRCA mailing list [email protected] http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org To Post a message: [email protected]
