Re: Topband: BOG height

[FZ Bruce]

 The Wave (BOG) antennas in Maine were very low frequency. The height
above ground in wavelength was low.
 Radio Corporation of America 1XAO here in Belfast was using 15 to 22
KHZ prior to 1924. The antenna length was 52,610 feet in length (just
under 10 Miles)
To develop a good front to back , and pattern a BOG needs to be close
to the ground in terms of wavelength.

As Guy K2AV said it does not behave like an above ground Beverage
antenna.

The Amateur Radio BOG is mis-named, should have been something like
WOG (wire on ground)

73
Bruce- K1FZ

-From: "K4SAV" 
To: topband@contesting.com
Cc: 
Sent: Saturday August 3 2019 9:44:11PM
Subject: Re: Topband: BOG height

 K2AV seem to be a storehouse of information. Thanks again Guy.

 One point, K2AV said:
 "If you model a real BOG, you find that beyond an ELECTRICAL half
wave ON
 THE WIRE, or two hundred something feet on 160, extending the BOG
wire will
 start to REVERSE the pattern."

 That never happened with my 366 ft BOG when it was lying on dead
grass 
 at an average of about 1.5 inches above the dirt. My tests comparing
a 
 250 ft BOG to a 366 ft one showed no significant front to back 
 difference. There were some pattern differences in other directions.

 I have never put a BOG directly on dirt so I can't say what happens 
 there. Measured data with the BOG 1.5 inches above the dirt does show

 that BOG gain drops about 6 dB right after a heavy rain or about the 
 same when covered by an inch of snow. Normally the gain of both the
250 
 and 366 ft BOGs were at about -17 dBi measured by comparison to
another 
 antenna that I know the gain of.

 I do know where the 250 ft recommended length for a 160 BOG came
from. 
 It came from NEC. I can make those same conclusions too if I only
look 
 at NEC data. I originally decided on 365 ft because NEC said it was 
 better than 250 ft. Subsequently I have lost confidence in NEC being 
 able to calculate BOG performance at any length. That was the impetus

 for my tests comparing 250 to 366 ft.

 K2AV also said:
 "A "beverage" ON the ground really is NOT a beverage."

 I agree that there is a lot of difference between a BOG and a
Beverage 
 above ground. At least that's the way we refer to them now but did
you 
 know that the antenna invented by Harold Beverage was a wire lying on

 the ground? Here is an excerpt from an interview with him:

 Beverage's words:
 "I invented the receiving antenna, the groundwave, the long waves
laid 
 on the ground. They were unidirectional, and nobody knew why. Others
— 
 the Navy — had used the ground waves, too. So I took a big heavy 
 receiver down the line and broke into some wires to see how the
signals 
 built up as it went towards the north and the static went down. Then 
 going the other way, the signal went down and the static came up.
Well, 
 I discovered that the reason that that antenna wire laying on the
ground 
 was unidirectional was the high losses. So that the static had built
up 
 to the northeast end and never got back down to the southwest end
into 
 the receiver. It was unidirectional just simply because of the losses
of 
 the wire laying on the ground. The idea then was we put stuff on
wires 
 at the northeast end. There was a resistor equal to the impedance of
the 
 antenna to make it unidirectional. You had but one wire I think."

 Jerry, K4SAV

 _
 Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband [1] - Topband
Reflector
 

Links:
--
[1] http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT8 on 160 - how you can make a difference

[Mark K3MSB]

Jerry

You said " Yes DX last year on 160 CW was pretty scarce" and other have
made a similar comment.

Are you referring to new ones, or just DX in general?I worked 16 new
ones on CW last season and understand that "scarce" can be different
depending upon how many DXCC one already has worked.

73 Mark K3MSB




On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 8:51 PM K4SAV  wrote:

> NR2DX asked: "If read your post correctly you are saying that you are
> working against an ambient noise level of 20-30 db over S9 is that
> correct.? "
>
> No.  The S9+20 to 30 dB is the S meter reading when all the FT8 stations
> are transmitting after the band opens a little.  Receiver bandwidth was
> 1.5 kHz.  Tuning to a clear frequency my noise level was about S1 with
> 200 Hz bandwidth when I made these tests.  I usually used 100 Hz
> bandwidth when measuring the signal level of the FT8 signal for
> determining his actual strength. Sometimes less if there were multiple
> signals in the passband.
>
>
> W0MU asked:  "Have you attempted to open a conversation with the
> creators of the mode and discuss what you are seeing?"
>
> No I have not.  I have also not seen any published data from anyone
> showing actual performance.  All I see are claims based on calculations.
> Theory is good but it has to agree reasonably well with actual
> measurements.  If not, one of the two is in error.
>
> Yes DX last year on 160 CW was pretty scarce.  Even when I was hearing
> S6 FT8 signals from Europe I would tune down to the CW portion of the
> band and usually there were no CW signals there.
>
> When I was doing these tests I was using WSJT-X in FT8 mode on 160
> meters.  I was using version 2.0.0, which was the latest version at the
> time.
>
> Jerry, K4SAV
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: BOG height

[K4SAV]

K2AV seem to be a storehouse of information.  Thanks again Guy.

One point, K2AV said:
"If you model a real BOG, you find that beyond an ELECTRICAL half wave ON
THE WIRE, or two hundred something feet on 160, extending the BOG wire will
start to REVERSE the pattern."

That never happened with my 366 ft BOG when it was lying on dead grass 
at an average of about 1.5 inches above the dirt.  My tests comparing a 
250 ft BOG to a 366 ft one showed no significant front to back 
difference. There were some pattern differences in other directions.


I have never put a BOG directly on dirt so I can't say what happens 
there. Measured data with the BOG 1.5 inches above the dirt does show 
that BOG gain drops about 6 dB right after a heavy rain or about the 
same when covered by an inch of snow.  Normally the gain of both the 250 
and 366 ft BOGs were at about -17 dBi measured by comparison to another 
antenna that I know the gain of.


I do know where the 250 ft recommended length for a 160 BOG came from.  
It came from NEC.  I can make those same conclusions too if I only look 
at NEC data.  I originally decided on 365 ft because NEC said it was 
better than 250 ft.  Subsequently I have lost confidence in NEC being 
able to calculate BOG performance at any length.  That was the impetus 
for my tests comparing 250 to 366 ft.


K2AV also said:
"A "beverage" ON the ground really is NOT a beverage."

I agree that there is a lot of difference between a BOG and a Beverage 
above ground.  At least that's the way we refer to them now but did you 
know that the antenna invented by Harold Beverage was a wire lying on 
the ground?  Here is an excerpt from an interview with him:


Beverage's words:
"I invented the receiving antenna, the groundwave, the long waves laid 
on the ground. They were unidirectional, and nobody knew why. Others — 
the Navy — had used the ground waves, too. So I took a big heavy 
receiver down the line and broke into some wires to see how the signals 
built up as it went towards the north and the static went down. Then 
going the other way, the signal went down and the static came up. Well, 
I discovered that the reason that that antenna wire laying on the ground 
was unidirectional was the high losses. So that the static had built up 
to the northeast end and never got back down to the southwest end into 
the receiver. It was unidirectional just simply because of the losses of 
the wire laying on the ground. The idea then was we put stuff on wires 
at the northeast end. There was a resistor equal to the impedance of the 
antenna to make it unidirectional. You had but one wire I think."


Jerry, K4SAV

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT8 on 160 - how you can make a difference

[K4SAV]

NR2DX asked: "If read your post correctly you are saying that you are 
working against an ambient noise level of 20-30 db over S9 is that 
correct.? "


No.  The S9+20 to 30 dB is the S meter reading when all the FT8 stations 
are transmitting after the band opens a little.  Receiver bandwidth was 
1.5 kHz.  Tuning to a clear frequency my noise level was about S1 with 
200 Hz bandwidth when I made these tests.  I usually used 100 Hz 
bandwidth when measuring the signal level of the FT8 signal for 
determining his actual strength. Sometimes less if there were multiple 
signals in the passband.



W0MU asked:  "Have you attempted to open a conversation with the 
creators of the mode and discuss what you are seeing?"


No I have not.  I have also not seen any published data from anyone 
showing actual performance.  All I see are claims based on calculations. 
Theory is good but it has to agree reasonably well with actual 
measurements.  If not, one of the two is in error.


Yes DX last year on 160 CW was pretty scarce.  Even when I was hearing 
S6 FT8 signals from Europe I would tune down to the CW portion of the 
band and usually there were no CW signals there.


When I was doing these tests I was using WSJT-X in FT8 mode on 160 
meters.  I was using version 2.0.0, which was the latest version at the 
time.


Jerry, K4SAV
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 performance

[Charlie Young]

Hello Jerry



When FT8 came out in 2017, I tried it.  Once past the gee whiz factor of the 
technology, I did not care for it. Being a traditional CW DX chaser on all 
bands, making FT8 QSO’s did nothing for me. Like kissing your sister.  As the 
activity picked up on FT8, some soul searching was done.  To continue building 
Challenge points, it was either adopt FT8 or quit working new ones, primarily 
on 6 meters, where most of my Challenge opportunity exists.  So, I bit the 
bullet and moved to FT8, so far only for new ones, and primarily on 6.



FT8 has transformed 6 Meters.  The activity has  nearly all moved to FT8. If 
you start from scratch today on 6 with CW or SSB only, I don’t know if you 
could make DXCC in a lifetime.  Will Topband become like this?  I hope not, but 
don’t know.   The FT8 mode is very effective on 6, QSO’s are in my log which 
would not be there except for FT8.  Lots of these QSO’s.   Once can argue 
whether these are QSO’s in the same sense as a CW QSO, but the ARRL says they 
are, and they are the sponsors/keeper of the awards.  I don’t personally like 
FT8, but it is a useful tool for making Challenge points.  The needed slots are 
not available on conventional modes, at least not on 6 meters.



I have spent the entire 6M E skip season in 2018 and 2019 on 6M FT8, and have 
tried to find meaning in the dB report. Strictly by observation, I can’t 
correlate the SNR report with an S Meter reading at all.  If my noise level is 
low, there are several layers of signal audible below S-1 on my IC7610.   It is 
very common to see a +10 to +15 SNR reading on a sub S-1 signal that does not 
even move the S meter at all.   I sometimes get lower SNR reports from locals, 
who do move the S meter to S9 or more.



It seems to have more to do with my baseline powerline noise level, and the 
number of signals in the passband.  What I do now is pay no attention at all to 
 the SNR report.  None.  It certainly seems to have no bearing on whether I 
could make a CW QSO or not with the signal.   Actually, what myself and other 
experienced CW ops have noticed is we frequently can hear very weak signals on 
FT8 that do not decode at all.  These would be workable on CW for sure.  
However, if the QSB during a transmit cycle drops the signal below the 
detection threshold for 3 or 4 seconds during a TX cycle, it is not going to 
decode.   Those are the types of signals which might be workable by good CW 
ops.  That said, I can frequently decode and work signals that do not meet my 
hearing threshold.  They just have to hang in for the entire TX cycle and be 
above the threshold for FT8.



This summer, I ran side by side comparisons with JTDX and FT8 on very weak 
signals.  This went on for 3 weeks or so, and I became convinced JTDX had 
superior weak signal decoding and switched to it.  JTDX has multiple decoders 
and other features which result in more sensitive decodes.  These are 
predictable.   On a moderately filled band,  WSJTX misses decodes that are -20 
or below and JTDX typically gets these.  The decodes are pretty accurate; I 
don’t get very many garbage decodes.  JTDX was directly responsible for a QSO 
with 6W1TA which WSJTX missed decoding.



So far, I have worked no new ones on FT8 Topband or 80M, but have listened   
With a steady S9 plus 20 to 40 dB roar of NA to NA signals, I am a bit 
skeptical about how effective it will be contrasted to 6.  However, this year 
my plan is to pay attention to the low bands on FT8 and see how it works.   I 
will use JTDX for my testing.



Again, my only interest in FT8 is to work new ones.  I could care less about 
making hundreds of routine QSO’s on the mode.  Lots of folks do enjoy it, 
witness the huge amount of activity.



FT8 has been around since mid 2017.  Imagine all the Challenge points, Digital 
and Mixed DXCC credits that have been awarded.  I don’t see the ARRL 
backtracking on their initial approach to FT8/FT4 etc.  For myself, I had an 
attitude adjustment and moved on.



73 Charlie N8RR











Sent from Mail for Windows 10




From: Topband  on behalf of K4SAV 

Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 5:09:55 PM
To: topband@contesting.com 
Subject: Re: Topband: FT-8 performance

I'm not sure how FT-8 calculates the reported S/N number. I found very
little information on the subject and what I did find was not easily
understandable.  What I did was an experiment in which I was able to get
close to the same number being reported.  According to what I have read
about FT-8, it does not implement the same method as I was using in my
testing.

It was very obvious to me that the number being reported was useless.
.Example:  How would you be able to report a S/N of -1 dB when the
station is S9+40 db on the S meter and the receiver reads S1 when tuned
to a spot with no stations.  (Actual measurement)

I made a guess that the number being reported was 

Topband: CW on 160 mts

[Jorge Diez - CX6VM]

Hello

for sure CW is magic on topband, the exitement to make a DX QSO on that
band compare to nothing

I think is a lack of activity. All people (me also) are waiting to see a
spot to go and call him/her

Right now, on EUHFC contest, many stations heard on topband..!!

-- 
73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W


Libre
de virus. www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: BOG height

[Paul Mclaren]

Guy,

Thanks and two initial questions:

1) what are the consequences good or bad if the wire is 2 inches above the
ground?

2) any recommendations on a BOG amplifier?

Thanks

Paul

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 23:29, Cecil  wrote:

> Guy...a great post!
>
> Great information for those of us who are looking for RX antenna options
> but don’t have the room for the normal RX antennas...
>
> And also a real breath of fresh air in light of our recent discussions..
>
> Thank You!
>
> Cecil
> K5DL
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Aug 3, 2019, at 5:17 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV  wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Ed,
> >
> > You're on the right track.
> >
> > A "beverage" ON the ground really is NOT a beverage.  For two things to
> be
> > called the same genus, they need to have most everything in common. This
> is
> > true of big yagis, little yagis, short yagis, long yagis, trapped yagis,
> > linear loaded yagis, end loaded yagis, moxons, yagis at 30 feet and yagis
> > at 200 feet, etc. One program optimizes them all. A yagi is a yagi, is a
> > yagi, is a yagi, and all of them have a ton of yagi-ness held in common.
> > Simply not so BOG vs. beverage.
> >
> > Creating beverage advice from one particulars person's wire down close to
> > or on the ground at their particular property, may be simply and totally
> > wrong for someone else. The normal beverage tuning instructions, usually
> OK
> > for wires a foot off the ground and maybe even OK to some degree for four
> > inches, simply do not apply if the wire is actually laying on the ground.
> >
> > A regular beverage has a decent RX signal strength. To be truthful, a
> > **real** BOG needs a remote amplifier, because its output is way down
> from
> > a real beverage. Get this much straight: an actual BOG is a LOW output
> > antenna, period. The way to improve a BOG's signal output is add an amp
> > (best remote), or escape BOG-iness and lift it off the ground.
> >
> > If you model a real BOG, you find that beyond an ELECTRICAL half wave ON
> > THE WIRE, or two hundred something feet on 160, extending the BOG wire
> will
> > start to REVERSE the pattern. No real beverage ever does that. Just some
> > beverage lengths are bit better than others FOR REAL BEVERAGES. A BOG is
> a
> > single band antenna for optimums. It will hear stuff on other bands, but
> > forget a designed pattern like you have on a beverage for several bands,
> > that work WELL on several bands.
> >
> > If you are even two inches above actual ground, laying on top of grass,
> you
> > are blending the very different worlds of pure BOG and pure beverage. If
> > you are at two inches, you are at a poor place to advise either owners of
> > pure BOG's or pure beverages. The great problem is that exactly which
> type
> > you are closer to depends on the vagaries of the location-specific ground
> > underneath.
> >
> > These vagaries wander HUGELY ( I'm talking about an actually carefully
> > measured  wandering HUGELY) depending on individual properties.
> > Based on those **measurements** it is a normal outcome that one end of
> the
> > wire could be more BOG and the other end of the same wire could be more
> > beverage, and even vary more depending on whether it rained in the last
> few
> > days (or weeks depending on the local and natural drainage of the soil).
> >
> > It is clear reading a lot of the posts on BOG's from the last week or
> two,
> > that a lot of users were expecting greater signal output. Don't. A REAL
> > *BOG* that was laid down, notched in the grass down to the actual ground
> > surface, to get it out of sight and safe from lawn mowers, WILL sound
> MUCH
> > better to the ear if it has an amp. Otherwise, a BOG is a LOW LEVEL RX
> > antenna.
> >
> > IN GENERAL, a real BOG needs an amplifier, will usually wind up somewhere
> > 180 to 230 feet if you want front to back, and it's great advantage is
> that
> > it can't be mowed, snagged by galloping deer, have tree branches knock it
> > down, be seen by unfriendly neighbors and it will do roughly as well as a
> > single direction K9AY, but without the AY's ugly wires above the ground,
> IF
> > it's amplified. If the feed circuitry is done correctly, a BOG will be
> > wonderful at reducing local noise off the sides.
> >
> > You will increase signal level significantly by getting it up an inch or
> > two on top of the grass, but it ain't a pure BOG anymore, the VF is
> > increased significantly, and then it needs more length to be optimum at
> two
> > inches. And you will still not be able to tune it smartly like a beverage
> > using SWR to the terminating resistor.
> >
> > BOGs are a cantankerous RX antenna. You can throw a 250' wire down on top
> > of the lawn and take it up after the contest. In normal (not super quiet)
> > settings it WILL hear a lot of signals better than the inverted L. Just
> > understand that is NOT a design antenna, and was not optimized, did not
> > have the best signal to noise of a designed-for-location BOG antenna, and
> > was 

Re: Topband: BOG height

[Cecil]

Guy...a great post!  

Great information for those of us who are looking for RX antenna options but 
don’t have the room for the normal RX antennas...

And also a real breath of fresh air in light of our recent discussions..

Thank You!

Cecil
K5DL

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 3, 2019, at 5:17 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV  wrote:
> 
> Hi, Ed,
> 
> You're on the right track.
> 
> A "beverage" ON the ground really is NOT a beverage.  For two things to be
> called the same genus, they need to have most everything in common. This is
> true of big yagis, little yagis, short yagis, long yagis, trapped yagis,
> linear loaded yagis, end loaded yagis, moxons, yagis at 30 feet and yagis
> at 200 feet, etc. One program optimizes them all. A yagi is a yagi, is a
> yagi, is a yagi, and all of them have a ton of yagi-ness held in common.
> Simply not so BOG vs. beverage.
> 
> Creating beverage advice from one particulars person's wire down close to
> or on the ground at their particular property, may be simply and totally
> wrong for someone else. The normal beverage tuning instructions, usually OK
> for wires a foot off the ground and maybe even OK to some degree for four
> inches, simply do not apply if the wire is actually laying on the ground.
> 
> A regular beverage has a decent RX signal strength. To be truthful, a
> **real** BOG needs a remote amplifier, because its output is way down from
> a real beverage. Get this much straight: an actual BOG is a LOW output
> antenna, period. The way to improve a BOG's signal output is add an amp
> (best remote), or escape BOG-iness and lift it off the ground.
> 
> If you model a real BOG, you find that beyond an ELECTRICAL half wave ON
> THE WIRE, or two hundred something feet on 160, extending the BOG wire will
> start to REVERSE the pattern. No real beverage ever does that. Just some
> beverage lengths are bit better than others FOR REAL BEVERAGES. A BOG is a
> single band antenna for optimums. It will hear stuff on other bands, but
> forget a designed pattern like you have on a beverage for several bands,
> that work WELL on several bands.
> 
> If you are even two inches above actual ground, laying on top of grass, you
> are blending the very different worlds of pure BOG and pure beverage. If
> you are at two inches, you are at a poor place to advise either owners of
> pure BOG's or pure beverages. The great problem is that exactly which type
> you are closer to depends on the vagaries of the location-specific ground
> underneath.
> 
> These vagaries wander HUGELY ( I'm talking about an actually carefully
> measured  wandering HUGELY) depending on individual properties.
> Based on those **measurements** it is a normal outcome that one end of the
> wire could be more BOG and the other end of the same wire could be more
> beverage, and even vary more depending on whether it rained in the last few
> days (or weeks depending on the local and natural drainage of the soil).
> 
> It is clear reading a lot of the posts on BOG's from the last week or two,
> that a lot of users were expecting greater signal output. Don't. A REAL
> *BOG* that was laid down, notched in the grass down to the actual ground
> surface, to get it out of sight and safe from lawn mowers, WILL sound MUCH
> better to the ear if it has an amp. Otherwise, a BOG is a LOW LEVEL RX
> antenna.
> 
> IN GENERAL, a real BOG needs an amplifier, will usually wind up somewhere
> 180 to 230 feet if you want front to back, and it's great advantage is that
> it can't be mowed, snagged by galloping deer, have tree branches knock it
> down, be seen by unfriendly neighbors and it will do roughly as well as a
> single direction K9AY, but without the AY's ugly wires above the ground, IF
> it's amplified. If the feed circuitry is done correctly, a BOG will be
> wonderful at reducing local noise off the sides.
> 
> You will increase signal level significantly by getting it up an inch or
> two on top of the grass, but it ain't a pure BOG anymore, the VF is
> increased significantly, and then it needs more length to be optimum at two
> inches. And you will still not be able to tune it smartly like a beverage
> using SWR to the terminating resistor.
> 
> BOGs are a cantankerous RX antenna. You can throw a 250' wire down on top
> of the lawn and take it up after the contest. In normal (not super quiet)
> settings it WILL hear a lot of signals better than the inverted L. Just
> understand that is NOT a design antenna, and was not optimized, did not
> have the best signal to noise of a designed-for-location BOG antenna, and
> was not as good as a beverage.
> 
> We know what the issues are, but new-comers to the BOG idea just don't know
> the vagaries and how to squeeze the best out of on THEIR property.
> 
> The category is Ground Low Velocity Factor (GLVF) antennas. DOGs, LOGs and
> BOGs. If they're up in the air, even two inches, they're likely NOT GLVF.
> GLVF are low output RX antennas. If you are looking for high signal output
> 

Re: Topband: FT8 on 160 - how you can make a difference

[Paul Mclaren]

For me it is quite simple CW and SSB when I am in the shack and FT8 when I
am not.  It’s the same for all bands and has actually increased my
enjoyment and access to the radio.

I don’t have the luxury to spend hours in the shack so finding out what is
being received when I am busy is a definite bonus.  I can also connect over
the WiFi from the iPad to remote control the shack PC and make a few
contacts at hours of the day I would not usually have chance to be on the
radio.

As has been said it is pretty interesting to see what is going on when you
can be on the band 24/7.

Regards

Paul MM0ZBH


On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 23:00, Phil Duff  wrote:

>
> > On Aug 3, 2019, at 4:32 PM, Cecil  wrote:
> >
> > I worked very little DX on 6M until FT8 so there is still something more
> going on than you have discovered in your testing.
> >
> > Cecil
> > K5DL
> >
>
> From my experience - it's simply that there is much more DX using FT8 on
> all bands than other modes.
>
> Not long after FT8 was released firing it up on 80m at fall morning
> sunrises was very revealing. The amount and variety of DX available from
> the Far East on FT8 was eye-opening whereas CW/SSB were very slim pickings
> if existent at all on any given morning.
>
> No signs of that changing - except maybe continuing to increase.
>
> 73 Phil NA4M
>
> -. .- ….- --
> Phil Duff  na4m[at]suddenlink[dot]net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: BOG height

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

Hi, Ed,

You're on the right track.

A "beverage" ON the ground really is NOT a beverage.  For two things to be
called the same genus, they need to have most everything in common. This is
true of big yagis, little yagis, short yagis, long yagis, trapped yagis,
linear loaded yagis, end loaded yagis, moxons, yagis at 30 feet and yagis
at 200 feet, etc. One program optimizes them all. A yagi is a yagi, is a
yagi, is a yagi, and all of them have a ton of yagi-ness held in common.
Simply not so BOG vs. beverage.

Creating beverage advice from one particulars person's wire down close to
or on the ground at their particular property, may be simply and totally
wrong for someone else. The normal beverage tuning instructions, usually OK
for wires a foot off the ground and maybe even OK to some degree for four
inches, simply do not apply if the wire is actually laying on the ground.

A regular beverage has a decent RX signal strength. To be truthful, a
**real** BOG needs a remote amplifier, because its output is way down from
a real beverage. Get this much straight: an actual BOG is a LOW output
antenna, period. The way to improve a BOG's signal output is add an amp
(best remote), or escape BOG-iness and lift it off the ground.

If you model a real BOG, you find that beyond an ELECTRICAL half wave ON
THE WIRE, or two hundred something feet on 160, extending the BOG wire will
start to REVERSE the pattern. No real beverage ever does that. Just some
beverage lengths are bit better than others FOR REAL BEVERAGES. A BOG is a
single band antenna for optimums. It will hear stuff on other bands, but
forget a designed pattern like you have on a beverage for several bands,
that work WELL on several bands.

If you are even two inches above actual ground, laying on top of grass, you
are blending the very different worlds of pure BOG and pure beverage. If
you are at two inches, you are at a poor place to advise either owners of
pure BOG's or pure beverages. The great problem is that exactly which type
you are closer to depends on the vagaries of the location-specific ground
underneath.

These vagaries wander HUGELY ( I'm talking about an actually carefully
measured  wandering HUGELY) depending on individual properties.
Based on those **measurements** it is a normal outcome that one end of the
wire could be more BOG and the other end of the same wire could be more
beverage, and even vary more depending on whether it rained in the last few
days (or weeks depending on the local and natural drainage of the soil).

It is clear reading a lot of the posts on BOG's from the last week or two,
that a lot of users were expecting greater signal output. Don't. A REAL
*BOG* that was laid down, notched in the grass down to the actual ground
surface, to get it out of sight and safe from lawn mowers, WILL sound MUCH
better to the ear if it has an amp. Otherwise, a BOG is a LOW LEVEL RX
antenna.

IN GENERAL, a real BOG needs an amplifier, will usually wind up somewhere
180 to 230 feet if you want front to back, and it's great advantage is that
it can't be mowed, snagged by galloping deer, have tree branches knock it
down, be seen by unfriendly neighbors and it will do roughly as well as a
single direction K9AY, but without the AY's ugly wires above the ground, IF
it's amplified. If the feed circuitry is done correctly, a BOG will be
wonderful at reducing local noise off the sides.

You will increase signal level significantly by getting it up an inch or
two on top of the grass, but it ain't a pure BOG anymore, the VF is
increased significantly, and then it needs more length to be optimum at two
inches. And you will still not be able to tune it smartly like a beverage
using SWR to the terminating resistor.

BOGs are a cantankerous RX antenna. You can throw a 250' wire down on top
of the lawn and take it up after the contest. In normal (not super quiet)
settings it WILL hear a lot of signals better than the inverted L. Just
understand that is NOT a design antenna, and was not optimized, did not
have the best signal to noise of a designed-for-location BOG antenna, and
was not as good as a beverage.

We know what the issues are, but new-comers to the BOG idea just don't know
the vagaries and how to squeeze the best out of on THEIR property.

The category is Ground Low Velocity Factor (GLVF) antennas. DOGs, LOGs and
BOGs. If they're up in the air, even two inches, they're likely NOT GLVF.
GLVF are low output RX antennas. If you are looking for high signal output
from the antenna without an amplifier, just forget GLVF.

Been there, done all of that.

73, Guy K2AV


On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 2:57 PM Ed Sawyer  wrote:

> Isn't  BOG still a beverage just with more ground coupling loss because its
> literally "on the ground"?  So the typical answer on beverages seems to be
> that 4 - 10 ft above the ground is low enough to eliminate the undesired
> noise but high enough to reduce the losses from being too low to the
> ground.
> A BOG is a beverage 

Re: Topband: FT8 on 160 - how you can make a difference

[Phil Duff]

> On Aug 3, 2019, at 4:32 PM, Cecil  wrote:
> 
> I worked very little DX on 6M until FT8 so there is still something more 
> going on than you have discovered in your testing.
> 
> Cecil
> K5DL
> 

From my experience - it's simply that there is much more DX using FT8 on all 
bands than other modes.

Not long after FT8 was released firing it up on 80m at fall morning sunrises 
was very revealing. The amount and variety of DX available from the Far East on 
FT8 was eye-opening whereas CW/SSB were very slim pickings if existent at all 
on any given morning. 

No signs of that changing - except maybe continuing to increase.  

73 Phil NA4M

-. .- ….- --
Phil Duff  na4m[at]suddenlink[dot]net
















_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT8 on 160 - how you can make a difference

[Artek Manuals]

Dave

If read your post correctly you are saying that you are working against 
an ambient noise level of 20-30 db over S9 is that correct.?


And for starters your measurements are made against that background did 
I understand that correctly?


Trying to keep this simple

Dave
NR1DX


On 8/3/2019 3:28 PM, K4SAV wrote:
There is growing trend on 160 that I find disturbing and that is for 
major DXpedition to use FT8 for all or mostly all 160 operations. They 
do that because they "know" that FT8 is ideally suited for weak signal 
operation.  They have read that and are continually told that by 
everyone.  Rare countries on 160 is synonymous with weak signals and 
poor signal to noise ratios.


I know of no one that has done the same tests that I posted to 
Topband.  I have had people agree with me but that was because they 
liked my answers, not because it agreed with their measurements.  I 
have had many people tell me I am wrong and they sited the official 
documentation as proof that my measurement were wrong.


So if you would like to join the ranks of myth busters, start doing 
some measuring.  WARNING, Myth busting of all types in ham radio is a 
never ending effort.  As soon as you bust one, two posts later someone 
will repeat it again. Sorry, I don't have any caps, pins, or t-shirts 
to sell.


If enough people start characterizing this mode maybe the more 
experienced people in radio will sit up and take notice.  One or two 
posts by a single person isn't going to do it.


You are not going to kill FT8 no matter what you do or how feel about 
it.  It will always be a home for those they can't copy CW, and for 
those that don't like CW, and for a few others for a variety of 
reasons.  I can't see a problem with that.  The problem I see is with 
FT8 and major DXpeditions.  I also see some FT8 only DXpeditions but 
those are usually vacation part time to non-rare countries.  Can't 
worry about those.


For people that can't copy CW, FT8 is very attractive.  It will allow 
them to work some DX on 160.  In the winter I see Europe appearing on 
FT8, so that can be worked from the eastern US. Invariably when I 
measure the strength of those stations, they are close to S6.  That 
would be arm chair copy on CW with a receiver that sits on S1 on noise.


So contribute to the ham radio knowledge data base by making some 
measurements.  I described my measurements in a previous post. 
Figuring out what the reported S/N number means is interesting but the 
more important question is what is the minimum signal to noise ratio 
this mode will decode.  Sitting up a test for minimum signal is a 
little tricky because there are so many FT8 stations on at any one 
time, there is almost never a nearly dead band.  I simulated that on 
160 by waiting until the first stations from the NE showed up on the 
band (just after their sunset) and turning my antenna away from them 
so as to decrease their strength and bring up the noise from other 
directions.  When I wait until sunset occurs in more locations, my S 
meter hangs at about S9 +20 to 30 dB no matter which direction I point 
my antenna.  I tried doing this on 6 meters but often there was 
nothing there. I suggest doing measurement first in normal decoding 
mode, then test what it does in deep search mode.  Be careful how you 
switch modes.  FT8 likes to memorize the band and make guesses in deep 
search mode.


You can try doing the minimum S/N test in a crowded band instead of a 
nearly dead band but I don't think you will ever find it decoding a 
weak signal.  You have to measure the noise levels and signal levels.  
You can't use the reported S/N number.


If you make some measurements, post them.  I would really like to hear 
what others find, especially if they happen to disagree with what I 
measured.


I don't have a pony in the dog and pony DXCC race so I don't have an 
opinion there.  I love working DX on 160 but collecting cards was no 
fun.  So years ago I decided to only do the fun part.  I compete with 
myself, no one else, and I don't get bragging rights, but I don't do 
this for bragging rights.


Jerry, K4SAV
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector




--
Dave
manu...@artekmanuals.com
www.ArtekManuals.com


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT8 on 160 - how you can make a difference

[Cecil]

I worked very little DX on 6M until FT8 so there is still something more going 
on than you have discovered in your testing.

Cecil
K5DL

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 3, 2019, at 4:23 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett  wrote:
> 
> Have you attempted to open a conversation with the creators of the mode and 
> discuss what you are seeing?  They seem like they are quite knowledgeable.  
> How can you disprove their claims of weak signal mode when you are not sure 
> how they are coming up with their numbers?
> 
> I never heard EU or JA on 160 until I tried FT8 last year.  I never once 
> heard any dx on CW last season although many tried as the devout 6M ops have 
> a chat room where there were countless tries on other modes but only contacts 
> made on FT8.  Why is that?  No longer do you have to have stacks or H frames 
> to work Gud DX on 6m.
> 
> W0MU
> 
> 
>> On 8/3/2019 1:28 PM, K4SAV wrote:
>> There is growing trend on 160 that I find disturbing and that is for major 
>> DXpedition to use FT8 for all or mostly all 160 operations. They do that 
>> because they "know" that FT8 is ideally suited for weak signal operation.  
>> They have read that and are continually told that by everyone.  Rare 
>> countries on 160 is synonymous with weak signals and poor signal to noise 
>> ratios.
>> 
>> I know of no one that has done the same tests that I posted to Topband.  I 
>> have had people agree with me but that was because they liked my answers, 
>> not because it agreed with their measurements.  I have had many people tell 
>> me I am wrong and they sited the official documentation as proof that my 
>> measurement were wrong.
>> 
>> So if you would like to join the ranks of myth busters, start doing some 
>> measuring.  WARNING, Myth busting of all types in ham radio is a never 
>> ending effort.  As soon as you bust one, two posts later someone will repeat 
>> it again. Sorry, I don't have any caps, pins, or t-shirts to sell.
>> 
>> If enough people start characterizing this mode maybe the more experienced 
>> people in radio will sit up and take notice.  One or two posts by a single 
>> person isn't going to do it.
>> 
>> You are not going to kill FT8 no matter what you do or how feel about it.  
>> It will always be a home for those they can't copy CW, and for those that 
>> don't like CW, and for a few others for a variety of reasons.  I can't see a 
>> problem with that.  The problem I see is with FT8 and major DXpeditions.  I 
>> also see some FT8 only DXpeditions but those are usually vacation part time 
>> to non-rare countries.  Can't worry about those.
>> 
>> For people that can't copy CW, FT8 is very attractive.  It will allow them 
>> to work some DX on 160.  In the winter I see Europe appearing on FT8, so 
>> that can be worked from the eastern US. Invariably when I measure the 
>> strength of those stations, they are close to S6.  That would be arm chair 
>> copy on CW with a receiver that sits on S1 on noise.
>> 
>> So contribute to the ham radio knowledge data base by making some 
>> measurements.  I described my measurements in a previous post. Figuring out 
>> what the reported S/N number means is interesting but the more important 
>> question is what is the minimum signal to noise ratio this mode will decode. 
>>  Sitting up a test for minimum signal is a little tricky because there are 
>> so many FT8 stations on at any one time, there is almost never a nearly dead 
>> band.  I simulated that on 160 by waiting until the first stations from the 
>> NE showed up on the band (just after their sunset) and turning my antenna 
>> away from them so as to decrease their strength and bring up the noise from 
>> other directions.  When I wait until sunset occurs in more locations, my S 
>> meter hangs at about S9 +20 to 30 dB no matter which direction I point my 
>> antenna.  I tried doing this on 6 meters but often there was nothing there. 
>> I suggest doing measurement first in normal decoding mode, then test what it 
>> does in deep search mod
 e.  Be careful how you switch modes.  FT8 likes to memorize the band and make 
guesses in deep search mode.
>> 
>> You can try doing the minimum S/N test in a crowded band instead of a nearly 
>> dead band but I don't think you will ever find it decoding a weak signal.  
>> You have to measure the noise levels and signal levels.  You can't use the 
>> reported S/N number.
>> 
>> If you make some measurements, post them.  I would really like to hear what 
>> others find, especially if they happen to disagree with what I measured.
>> 
>> I don't have a pony in the dog and pony DXCC race so I don't have an opinion 
>> there.  I love working DX on 160 but collecting cards was no fun.  So years 
>> ago I decided to only do the fun part.  I compete with myself, no one else, 
>> and I don't get bragging rights, but I don't do this for bragging rights.
>> 
>> Jerry, K4SAV
>> _
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
> 

Re: Topband: FT8 on 160 - how you can make a difference

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

Have you attempted to open a conversation with the creators of the mode 
and discuss what you are seeing?  They seem like they are quite 
knowledgeable.  How can you disprove their claims of weak signal mode 
when you are not sure how they are coming up with their numbers?


I never heard EU or JA on 160 until I tried FT8 last year.  I never once 
heard any dx on CW last season although many tried as the devout 6M ops 
have a chat room where there were countless tries on other modes but 
only contacts made on FT8.  Why is that?  No longer do you have to have 
stacks or H frames to work Gud DX on 6m.


W0MU


On 8/3/2019 1:28 PM, K4SAV wrote:
There is growing trend on 160 that I find disturbing and that is for 
major DXpedition to use FT8 for all or mostly all 160 operations. They 
do that because they "know" that FT8 is ideally suited for weak signal 
operation.  They have read that and are continually told that by 
everyone.  Rare countries on 160 is synonymous with weak signals and 
poor signal to noise ratios.


I know of no one that has done the same tests that I posted to 
Topband.  I have had people agree with me but that was because they 
liked my answers, not because it agreed with their measurements.  I 
have had many people tell me I am wrong and they sited the official 
documentation as proof that my measurement were wrong.


So if you would like to join the ranks of myth busters, start doing 
some measuring.  WARNING, Myth busting of all types in ham radio is a 
never ending effort.  As soon as you bust one, two posts later someone 
will repeat it again. Sorry, I don't have any caps, pins, or t-shirts 
to sell.


If enough people start characterizing this mode maybe the more 
experienced people in radio will sit up and take notice.  One or two 
posts by a single person isn't going to do it.


You are not going to kill FT8 no matter what you do or how feel about 
it.  It will always be a home for those they can't copy CW, and for 
those that don't like CW, and for a few others for a variety of 
reasons.  I can't see a problem with that.  The problem I see is with 
FT8 and major DXpeditions.  I also see some FT8 only DXpeditions but 
those are usually vacation part time to non-rare countries.  Can't 
worry about those.


For people that can't copy CW, FT8 is very attractive.  It will allow 
them to work some DX on 160.  In the winter I see Europe appearing on 
FT8, so that can be worked from the eastern US. Invariably when I 
measure the strength of those stations, they are close to S6.  That 
would be arm chair copy on CW with a receiver that sits on S1 on noise.


So contribute to the ham radio knowledge data base by making some 
measurements.  I described my measurements in a previous post. 
Figuring out what the reported S/N number means is interesting but the 
more important question is what is the minimum signal to noise ratio 
this mode will decode.  Sitting up a test for minimum signal is a 
little tricky because there are so many FT8 stations on at any one 
time, there is almost never a nearly dead band.  I simulated that on 
160 by waiting until the first stations from the NE showed up on the 
band (just after their sunset) and turning my antenna away from them 
so as to decrease their strength and bring up the noise from other 
directions.  When I wait until sunset occurs in more locations, my S 
meter hangs at about S9 +20 to 30 dB no matter which direction I point 
my antenna.  I tried doing this on 6 meters but often there was 
nothing there. I suggest doing measurement first in normal decoding 
mode, then test what it does in deep search mode.  Be careful how you 
switch modes.  FT8 likes to memorize the band and make guesses in deep 
search mode.


You can try doing the minimum S/N test in a crowded band instead of a 
nearly dead band but I don't think you will ever find it decoding a 
weak signal.  You have to measure the noise levels and signal levels.  
You can't use the reported S/N number.


If you make some measurements, post them.  I would really like to hear 
what others find, especially if they happen to disagree with what I 
measured.


I don't have a pony in the dog and pony DXCC race so I don't have an 
opinion there.  I love working DX on 160 but collecting cards was no 
fun.  So years ago I decided to only do the fun part.  I compete with 
myself, no one else, and I don't get bragging rights, but I don't do 
this for bragging rights.


Jerry, K4SAV
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector


_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160

[Cecil]

Excellent post...

Cecil
K5DL

Sent from my Verizon Motorola Smartphone
On Aug 3, 2019 10:35 AM, kol...@rcn.com wrote:
>
>
> "The dogs bark, but the caravan rolls on" -ancient proverb 
>
> As I understand it, some of this discussion is based on the romantic idea 
> that we old timers had it tough but today it's all easy and without real 
> challenge. This charge is nothing new, so a little history might be in order. 
> The history of Ham Radio since the advent of the home computer has been the 
> gradual replacement of operator intervention with computer initiatives in our 
> operating activities. Let's look at some. 
>
> FT8: 
> Is ultimately just another digital mode, the only real difference is that 
> more of the automation is built in from the start. But, in principal, any of 
> the digital modes (indeed any mode at all) can be made as automated as one 
> desires these days. For those under 45 (hi hi), to operate RTTY back in the 
> day required a thing called a Terminal Unit to translate the mark/space 
> signals to voltage levels to feed a Teletype machine (which was basically a 
> big, noisy, heavy duty typewriter). But that hasn't been the reality for RTTY 
> for a long time. RTTY is now as easy as downloading a program, only 
> marginally more difficult than operating FT8. After all, the packet cluster 
> can give you the who and where and the program tunes your radio to the proper 
> frequency. You press "send" until you get a reply (if you are working a rare 
> DX counter operating split there can be some more to it) and the computer 
> logs it after you make the contact and can even send the logging in to LOTW 
> for credit. 
>
> DXing: 
> Originally required hours and hours in front of the radio, tuning and looking 
> for the DX. Now there were things like DX nets, and newsletters/bulletins and 
> the like to help a bit and DXpeditions were publicised in magazines and word 
> of mouth. But with the advent of the computer and packet radio, all that 
> changed. Decades ago, a friend of mine developed a computer program to track 
> your DX totals and generate mailing labels for the QSL's. He interfaced that 
> with the Packet and when a new coun... err... entity came on the air, his 
> computer would send "DX" (in CW, of course) and he could walk back to the 
> shack, work the counter and go back to the ball game. Quite a culture shock 
> for the guys still tuning around on their National HRO's. Now the DX cluster 
> is an entrenched reality along with Skimmer etc. No sitting in front of the 
> rig necessary. And QSLing in the day was a royal PITA, now you just print out 
> the labels and download the LOTW credits. 
>
> Contesting: 
> There is a film (now video, produced by a NFL films dude!) from decades ago 
> on YouTube that shows the DX contest from the perspective of a bunch of the 
> Frankford Radio Club participants. Again, if you are not over 45 it may be a 
> bit of a mystery what's going on. There is no Packet cluster, so DX callouts 
> happened on 2m FM! And you will see lots of paper. They are Log Sheets (where 
> you wrote down your contacts) and Cross Check sheets (where you kept track of 
> you contacts by listing them alphabetically so you wouldn't work too many 
> duplicate contacts). After the contest, you would have to "redupe" your log 
> to try and catch dupes that got past in the heat of battle, this would take a 
> week or two of intermittent effort. And a fabulous talent for a contester to 
> have was a good level of call recall (hi hi), the more guys you rememberd you 
> worked the less you had to refer to the Cross Check sheet. Of course, all 
> this is gone, replaced by our computer running a program like N1MM (or CT in 
> th 
> e olden times). 
>   
> I could go on (but mercifully won't), the point is that this is all part of a 
> natural progression, an inevitable part of human innovation. To me, the guys 
> who really have a beef are the guys from after WW2 until the computer era. 
> You could argue that we have devalued their accomplishments (you can also 
> argue they had more fun, but that's another post). But I would argue that 
> everyone's accomplishments stand on their own according to their time, 
> circumstances and operating preferences. Hank Aaron didn't devalue Babe Ruth. 
> I would also argue that the world keeps turning and the caravan is 
> inexorable... 
>
> 73, Kevin K3OX  
>
> _ 
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector 
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160

[Renee K6FSB]

I agree. It is disconcerting to reference something we cannot all access.
If possible at least place said info where those that wish to access may 
do so.

if possible paraphrase-
The "how to article" in question from QST 1972 where an operator makes a 
completely operator free station to make contacts.bottom line 
"somehow it (ham radio) just doesn't seem to be as much fun as it used 
to be.. "

tnx e 73
Renée, K6FSB


On 2019-08-03 11:49 a.m., Martin Kratoska wrote:

Gentlemen,

stop this annoying practice, please! Not all are ARRL members!

Thanks for understanding,

73
Martin, OK1RR


Dne 03. 08. 19 v 20:20 donov...@starpower.net napsal(a):


Hi Bob

The "how to" article is right here:


http://p1k.arrl.org/pubs_archive/63144


73
Frank
W3LPL

- Original Message -

From: "Robert Brennan via Topband" 
To: "Cecil" 
Cc: "rich k7zv" , "Harald Rester" 
, "Alan Swinger" , 
topband@contesting.com

Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 10:00:03 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: 160

Gentleman,
I have been using ft8 now for a little over a year now and have been 
relatively successful with it.

I also use CW and SSB.
If I can set up my station on ft8 and have it run automatically and 
collect new entities.

I would really like to know how to do that.
Perhaps one of you can write an article for QST.

73 Bob ad6hf

Sent from my iPhone


On Aug 2, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Cecil  wrote:



Sent from my iPad

On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:22 PM, Alan Swinger  
wrote:


. Since FT8 operators can walk away and not participate in QSOs, 
and come back after some other activity and see how many new 
countries and QSOs that the computer made, this is unlike Digital 
modes where operators must remain engaged to make QSOs. Therefore, 
seems to me that such Computer-generated contacts should have a 
separate category in the current award systems since the operators 
are not directly involved in making the QSOs . . . call it 
Computer-Aided Digital or something more clever. No argument that 
skill is required to set up a station to make FT-8 contacts, but a 
different set than what those of us who work DXCC, Challenge, etc 
use on CW, RTTY, and SSB, including those towers, expensive 
equipment, skills, and years of hard work to get the new ones when 
there was NO FT-8 or similar modes!
So, I do not be begrudge the new low signal computer-aided modes, 
nor do I cast aspersions on the Ops who enjoy using them . . . even 
though I am unlikely to join their ranks, but the Ham community 
should not penalize those of us who used non-FT modes to get our 
hard earned awards by giving an unfair advantage to a new 
technology. We (Ham Radio) need the New Technology, but these modes 
are sufficiently different in many ways from the older modes that 
justifies a separate category in the award spectrum. Therefore, I 
urge the ARRL and the CQ Magazine leadership to establish a Digital 
award category that is separate and different from the current DXCC 
et al Digital criteria.

Alan Swinger K9MBQ
Charlottesville, VA



-Original Message-

From: rich_k...@gphilltop.com
Sent: Aug 2, 2019 4:22 PM
To: Harald Rester 
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: 160

As ham radio changes there will remain at least a niche for CW, 
SSB, and
RTTY and it's competitions. FT8 will supplement the bands , not 
supplant
it, IMO. Do you think FT8, FT4 and whatever digital modes come 
along are
the future or will something else take its place? Who knows... 
time and
technology moves on. Maybe it might attract some of the 
Millennials to

fill in the void by us Baby Boomers who will all too soon be making.
Let's set a good example for them to follow.

Rich K7ZV



On 2019-08-02 12:42 pm, Harald Rester wrote:
Think about the time *we all *could have been on the air, while 
staring
at our screens, typing and reading. I make QSY to the shack - Hpe 
CU!


Harry, DH1NBE




Am 02.08.2019 um 21:26 schrieb uy0zg:


I do not propose stopping the FT8.

just compete with each other.

But keep in mind - Arnold will be the first -)):

https://www.alamy.com/arnold-schwarzenegger-terminator-2-judgment-day-1991-image66516208.html 





---
Nick, UY0ZG
http://www.topband.in.ua

W0MU Mike Fatchett писал 2019-08-02 21:52:

Ah so all FT8 users are cheaters. Does that mean that all Russian
hams use way more power than they should and their scores 
should not

count either?

The real issue here is change. Ham radio has been in constant 
motion

and change since it started and I hope in continues that way well
after we are dead.

So we better stop FT8 and protect VE1ZZ?

Sorry no.

Good day.


On 8/2/2019 12:45 PM, uy0zg wrote:

Hello, Mike

This is how the world works so that humanity always has moral
values.

They must be protected.
Example:
in a few years, 334 VE1ZZ countries will lose their value. His
achievements will be eaten by computer programs and robots 

It is right ?
Will there be many talents at 160 meters like Jack?

Will not be !

On the contrary - more and 

Re: Topband: 160

[Mike Waters]

It'll be a cold day in hell before I ever join the ARRL again.

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019, 1:50 PM Martin Kratoska  wrote:

> Gentlemen,
>
> stop this annoying practice, please! Not all are ARRL members!
>
> Thanks for understanding,
>
> 73
> Martin, OK1RR
>
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160

[Martin Kratoska]

Gentlemen,

stop this annoying practice, please! Not all are ARRL members!

Thanks for understanding,

73
Martin, OK1RR


Dne 03. 08. 19 v 20:20 donov...@starpower.net napsal(a):


Hi Bob

The "how to" article is right here:


http://p1k.arrl.org/pubs_archive/63144


73
Frank
W3LPL

- Original Message -

From: "Robert Brennan via Topband" 
To: "Cecil" 
Cc: "rich k7zv" , "Harald Rester" , "Alan 
Swinger" , topband@contesting.com
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 10:00:03 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: 160

Gentleman,
I have been using ft8 now for a little over a year now and have been relatively 
successful with it.
I also use CW and SSB.
If I can set up my station on ft8 and have it run automatically and collect new 
entities.
I would really like to know how to do that.
Perhaps one of you can write an article for QST.

73 Bob ad6hf

Sent from my iPhone


On Aug 2, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Cecil  wrote:



Sent from my iPad


On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:22 PM, Alan Swinger  wrote:


. Since FT8 operators can walk away and not participate in QSOs, and come back 
after some other activity and see how many new countries and QSOs that the 
computer made, this is unlike Digital modes where operators must remain engaged 
to make QSOs. Therefore, seems to me that such Computer-generated contacts 
should have a separate category in the current award systems since the 
operators are not directly involved in making the QSOs . . . call it 
Computer-Aided Digital or something more clever. No argument that skill is 
required to set up a station to make FT-8 contacts, but a different set than 
what those of us who work DXCC, Challenge, etc use on CW, RTTY, and SSB, 
including those towers, expensive equipment, skills, and years of hard work to 
get the new ones when there was NO FT-8 or similar modes!
So, I do not be begrudge the new low signal computer-aided modes, nor do I cast 
aspersions on the Ops who enjoy using them . . . even though I am unlikely to 
join their ranks, but the Ham community should not penalize those of us who 
used non-FT modes to get our hard earned awards by giving an unfair advantage 
to a new technology. We (Ham Radio) need the New Technology, but these modes 
are sufficiently different in many ways from the older modes that justifies a 
separate category in the award spectrum. Therefore, I urge the ARRL and the CQ 
Magazine leadership to establish a Digital award category that is separate and 
different from the current DXCC et al Digital criteria.
Alan Swinger K9MBQ
Charlottesville, VA



-Original Message-

From: rich_k...@gphilltop.com
Sent: Aug 2, 2019 4:22 PM
To: Harald Rester 
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: 160

As ham radio changes there will remain at least a niche for CW, SSB, and
RTTY and it's competitions. FT8 will supplement the bands , not supplant
it, IMO. Do you think FT8, FT4 and whatever digital modes come along are
the future or will something else take its place? Who knows... time and
technology moves on. Maybe it might attract some of the Millennials to
fill in the void by us Baby Boomers who will all too soon be making.
Let's set a good example for them to follow.

Rich K7ZV



On 2019-08-02 12:42 pm, Harald Rester wrote:
Think about the time *we all *could have been on the air, while staring
at our screens, typing and reading. I make QSY to the shack - Hpe CU!

Harry, DH1NBE




Am 02.08.2019 um 21:26 schrieb uy0zg:


I do not propose stopping the FT8.

just compete with each other.

But keep in mind - Arnold will be the first -)):

https://www.alamy.com/arnold-schwarzenegger-terminator-2-judgment-day-1991-image66516208.html



---
Nick, UY0ZG
http://www.topband.in.ua

W0MU Mike Fatchett писал 2019-08-02 21:52:

Ah so all FT8 users are cheaters. Does that mean that all Russian
hams use way more power than they should and their scores should not
count either?

The real issue here is change. Ham radio has been in constant motion
and change since it started and I hope in continues that way well
after we are dead.

So we better stop FT8 and protect VE1ZZ?

Sorry no.

Good day.


On 8/2/2019 12:45 PM, uy0zg wrote:

Hello, Mike

This is how the world works so that humanity always has moral
values.

They must be protected.
Example:
in a few years, 334 VE1ZZ countries will lose their value. His
achievements will be eaten by computer programs and robots 

It is right ?
Will there be many talents at 160 meters like Jack?

Will not be !

On the contrary - more and more stupidity and envy



---
Nick, UY0ZG
http://www.topband.in.ua

W0MU Mike Fatchett писал 2019-08-02 18:24:

Cheating is cheating. How many people used remote stations,
exceeded
their power limits, etc. Singling out a mode because you are
upset
that it has taken away activity in your preferred mode is not
helpful
to the hobby. Not everyone that use FT8 cheats. Not everyone
that
uses a amp that exceeds their legal limit uses it in that fashion.

How can you guarantee that everyone on the "Honor Role" 

Re: Topband: NR1DX, Dave, Introduction

[Richard McLachlan]

I was licensed in 1960 and very active on top band until about 1975. I then 
completely lost interest and only came back on the air this February. Wow, 
hasn’t it changed! When I last switched off packet did not exist nor did home 
computers. Contests involved loads of hand written logs and QSL were sent by 
post. DX hunting meant hours tuning the band and SSB was just coming in. 

I just caught the tail end of the last winter 160 season and was amazed that I 
could still read CW. I still managed to work about 25 countries including ZL 
and HL despite rubbish antennas and high noise. It is much much easier than it 
was 40 years ago because you actually know what frequency the DX is on and you 
can set it accurately. FT8 to me is the strange noise on 1840 that I hear and 
just tune past it.

A very interesting discussion nevertheless.

Richard G3OQT.

> On 3 Aug 2019, at 18:13, Artek Manuals  wrote:
> 
> I joined the group yesterday so by way of introduction  here is my background
> 
> I was first licensed in 1961. I remember my first contact on 160M vividly, 
> homebrew  6AQ5/807 running about 50 watts and a BC348...I still have the 
> receiver but not the home brew transmitter. I had attached about 20 feet of 
> wire to the metal flashing that runs around the edge of the house and I made 
> a contact with another station in Miami (from Tampa) that evening on CW..I 
> still get goose bumps thinking about the elation I felt . My other memorable 
> 160M contact was also from Florida, with a  9V1  on a text book gray line 
> path my sunset his sunrise. 750 watts and 60' inverted L. I was always a CW 
> addict, seldom SSB. And hours of sorting beeps out of the noise on 160M has 
> likely one of the main causes of more than few db of hearing loss after just 
> plain being and "old fart" at 72
> 
> I have been continuously licensed since the 1961 ( WN4CDN, WA4CDN, WD0AQD, 
> N0DH , N7EX, K9NX and finally NR1DX..)Except for brief interludes during 
> moves I had been on the air continuously up until 2005. The rigors of caring 
> for a terminally ill XYL, early retirement brought on by the crash in 2008 
> and a couple of moves (back) to Florida found me unable to get back on the 
> air except for a brief period in 2009 until this year .
> 
> I have recently built my retirement dream station; a TS990, KPA1500 Amp , 40' 
> Tower with a Stepp-IR 3E (for20-6) , Tree mounted Inverted V for 30/40 at 60' 
> , Inverted L on 80 and a 60' high "T"  on 160, The later two with their own 
> (non resonant ..alah k5IU) 90' elevated  radials. I live on a secluded, 
> wooded 1.5 acres and the shack is a stand alone building apart from the main 
> house which allows me to scream at the DX at 1AM if need be without waking up 
> the new XYL and the dog.
> 
> My corporate life had me moving all over the USA from Fl to WA and AZ to NH 
> plus several stints in between in TX, MO , IA, Wi , PA and MN. I have over 
> 270 countries on 160 but never felt really right about claiming that as it is 
> much easier to work JA from Spokane and Europe from New Hampshire and SA from 
> Florida. I am not much of a paper award collector I know I worked those 
> countries but I still enjoy counting band countries worked, The dream station 
> has worked 208 DXCC countries, 972 "band" countries but only 14 so far on 
> 160. (7 on CW and 7 on FT8). All since Feb15th of this year so yeah I am avid 
> DX'r
> 
> My love is wire antennas, I model using EZENEC and MMANAN-GAL. I will be 
> putting up receiving antennas hopefully between now and the end of September 
> , Have room for a couple of 300-350' beverages but mostly E-W favored, so 
> will considering steerable loops .
> 
> If you live in the greater Tampa, FL area, would love to get together and 
> tell stories about antennas and lies about the DX we worked over lunch
> 
> Dave
> NR1DX
> manu...@artekmanuals.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 8/3/2019 11:34 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
>> Of the last 1000 spots downloaded from DX Summit  just over 200 of them at 
>> on FT8.  Which means that nearly 800 spots were NOT FT8 meaning those were 
>> CW or SSB spots.  Not all of the spots are actually spots as many spots are 
>> just people venting and using the system as their message system.
>> 
>> Are we really not utilizing our bands?
>> 
>> You decide.
>> 
>> W0MU
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
> 
> -- 
> Dave
> manu...@artekmanuals.com
> www.ArtekManuals.com
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: Useful things to use FT8 for

[Artek Manuals]

I understand many of you are frustrated by the FT8 camel with his nose 
in the tent. Things change


Now FT8 showed up while I was on sabbatical for 10+ years from the hobby 
so I am now just getting into it.


On the negative side I agree
1) It has caused a loss of contacts on CW
2) It is a lot like watching paint dry, I have long contended that for a 
large proportion of us died in the wool CW DX Pilup jockeys that having 
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) is a necessary personality trait
3) It is a little TOO STRUCTURED. ( see comment about ADD above) . If 
you want to stop and chat a minute about you rig or the WX that option 
is largely not available. Thus it takes on the persona of "take a 
number, fill out this form and go stand in that line over there till 
your number is called".



But every tool has it's good side as well
1) It is a great way to check propagation. There is a free program 
called PSKReporter. I try to get on 160 and 80 around sunrise/sunset and 
call CQ with FT8. IF I get a reply great but even if I dont, I can go to 
PSKReporter and see who hears me, where and how strong . For example 
every morning I find that ZL4YL hears me on 160 and I log the relative 
signal strength I now know if the band is open to VK/ZL and what the 
cndx are likeo the same "monitoring" station day in and day out ( I see 
as much as 15 db variation day over day , that so far have NO 
CORRELATION to SFI, A or K) . Often if I am getting a really good report 
I can call CQ DX on FT8 or CW and many times  get a reply. IF the same 
monitor signal reports are way down , I move on. I even had luck by 
blind calling the "monitoring station" created a small EU opening for 
myself on 6M last week using this approach. Sometimes it is a lot like 
playing "blink", everyone is waiting for the other guy to make the first 
move.
2) For those of us with A.D.D. ... you will like the feel and pace of 
FT4 much better... After a couple of months of FT8 , I found the new FT4 
release actually a breath of fresh air because of the 7.5 second QSO pace.
3) The Robot station I posted about in an earlier post is also a useful 
tool for checking propagation ... So far I have worked my favorite robot 
with 5 watts on two bands and he apparently doesn't care how often I 
call, I can use him to check my F/B on my beam etc.
4) In spite of an earlier post by a K4,  that a friend of mine sent me 
about the various noise immunities of the various modes that may have 
come from this reflector . I have worked a couple of DX stations on 
160/80  that I could not hear ( maybe my ambient noise level is higher 
than that K4's?) I was never more surprised to see the screen turn red 
as someone answered me on FT8 and I had NO CLUE anyone was there
5) Some of you LIKE the fact that the exchange is short and not messy , 
I don't have to act like I heard (or even care) your name correctly or 
that I actually know how how much power your running. If this wasn't 
true more of you would have been on SSB than CW in the first place in 
the past
6) FT8/FT4 It is probably better for our hearing than sitting there with 
a pair of headphones on with the volume turned up too high trying to 
sort the beeps from the static crashes


So don't throw the baby out with the bath water just yet...use it where 
you can to your advantage


Dave
NR1DX
manu...@artekmanuals.com

www.ArtekManuals.com


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

It seems odd to me that 60 plus percent of all contacts submitted to 
club log are using a mode that nobody likes.  Maybe just maybe a lot of 
people really like the mode and most are actually sitting in front of 
their radio having fun.  How could that be?


That stat is staggering.  Seems like the bands are being used. Maybe we 
should be thankful for FT8.   300k contacts submitted to Club log, 
obviously that is not the total number contacts made over 7 days across 
the bands but over 200k are FT8.  If FT8 did not exist what would be the 
difference.  I would suggest that a good portion of those contacts would 
never have happened.  Those folks would not have gone back to CW or 
SSB.  Many of those stations now making FT8 contacts had very difficult 
times trying to work any DX.


Will FT8 die off when everyone has worked them all?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  
It will be curious to see how FT4 contesting is received.


Back to building my robot.

W0MU

On 8/3/2019 12:20 PM, donov...@starpower.net wrote:

Hi Bob

The "how to" article is right here:


http://p1k.arrl.org/pubs_archive/63144


73
Frank
W3LPL

- Original Message -

From: "Robert Brennan via Topband" 
To: "Cecil" 
Cc: "rich k7zv" , "Harald Rester" , "Alan 
Swinger" , topband@contesting.com
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 10:00:03 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: 160

Gentleman,
I have been using ft8 now for a little over a year now and have been relatively 
successful with it.
I also use CW and SSB.
If I can set up my station on ft8 and have it run automatically and collect new 
entities.
I would really like to know how to do that.
Perhaps one of you can write an article for QST.

73 Bob ad6hf

Sent from my iPhone


On Aug 2, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Cecil  wrote:



Sent from my iPad


On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:22 PM, Alan Swinger  wrote:

. Since FT8 operators can walk away and not participate in QSOs, and come back 
after some other activity and see how many new countries and QSOs that the 
computer made, this is unlike Digital modes where operators must remain engaged 
to make QSOs. Therefore, seems to me that such Computer-generated contacts 
should have a separate category in the current award systems since the 
operators are not directly involved in making the QSOs . . . call it 
Computer-Aided Digital or something more clever. No argument that skill is 
required to set up a station to make FT-8 contacts, but a different set than 
what those of us who work DXCC, Challenge, etc use on CW, RTTY, and SSB, 
including those towers, expensive equipment, skills, and years of hard work to 
get the new ones when there was NO FT-8 or similar modes!
So, I do not be begrudge the new low signal computer-aided modes, nor do I cast 
aspersions on the Ops who enjoy using them . . . even though I am unlikely to 
join their ranks, but the Ham community should not penalize those of us who 
used non-FT modes to get our hard earned awards by giving an unfair advantage 
to a new technology. We (Ham Radio) need the New Technology, but these modes 
are sufficiently different in many ways from the older modes that justifies a 
separate category in the award spectrum. Therefore, I urge the ARRL and the CQ 
Magazine leadership to establish a Digital award category that is separate and 
different from the current DXCC et al Digital criteria.
Alan Swinger K9MBQ
Charlottesville, VA



-Original Message-

From: rich_k...@gphilltop.com
Sent: Aug 2, 2019 4:22 PM
To: Harald Rester 
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: 160

As ham radio changes there will remain at least a niche for CW, SSB, and
RTTY and it's competitions. FT8 will supplement the bands , not supplant
it, IMO. Do you think FT8, FT4 and whatever digital modes come along are
the future or will something else take its place? Who knows... time and
technology moves on. Maybe it might attract some of the Millennials to
fill in the void by us Baby Boomers who will all too soon be making.
Let's set a good example for them to follow.

Rich K7ZV



On 2019-08-02 12:42 pm, Harald Rester wrote:
Think about the time *we all *could have been on the air, while staring
at our screens, typing and reading. I make QSY to the shack - Hpe CU!

Harry, DH1NBE




Am 02.08.2019 um 21:26 schrieb uy0zg:


I do not propose stopping the FT8.

just compete with each other.

But keep in mind - Arnold will be the first -)):

https://www.alamy.com/arnold-schwarzenegger-terminator-2-judgment-day-1991-image66516208.html



---
Nick, UY0ZG
http://www.topband.in.ua

W0MU Mike Fatchett писал 2019-08-02 21:52:

Ah so all FT8 users are cheaters. Does that mean that all Russian
hams use way more power than they should and their scores should not
count either?

The real issue here is change. Ham radio has been in constant motion
and change since it started and I hope in continues that way well
after we are dead.

So we better stop FT8 and protect VE1ZZ?

Sorry no.

Good day.


On 8/2/2019 12:45 PM, uy0zg wrote:

Hello, Mike

This is how the 

Re: Topband: 160

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

To read the article you have to logged into your ARRL account, at least 
I did.


On 8/3/2019 12:20 PM, donov...@starpower.net wrote:

Hi Bob

The "how to" article is right here:


http://p1k.arrl.org/pubs_archive/63144


73
Frank
W3LPL

- Original Message -

From: "Robert Brennan via Topband" 
To: "Cecil" 
Cc: "rich k7zv" , "Harald Rester" , "Alan 
Swinger" , topband@contesting.com
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 10:00:03 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: 160

Gentleman,
I have been using ft8 now for a little over a year now and have been relatively 
successful with it.
I also use CW and SSB.
If I can set up my station on ft8 and have it run automatically and collect new 
entities.
I would really like to know how to do that.
Perhaps one of you can write an article for QST.

73 Bob ad6hf

Sent from my iPhone


On Aug 2, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Cecil  wrote:



Sent from my iPad


On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:22 PM, Alan Swinger  wrote:

. Since FT8 operators can walk away and not participate in QSOs, and come back 
after some other activity and see how many new countries and QSOs that the 
computer made, this is unlike Digital modes where operators must remain engaged 
to make QSOs. Therefore, seems to me that such Computer-generated contacts 
should have a separate category in the current award systems since the 
operators are not directly involved in making the QSOs . . . call it 
Computer-Aided Digital or something more clever. No argument that skill is 
required to set up a station to make FT-8 contacts, but a different set than 
what those of us who work DXCC, Challenge, etc use on CW, RTTY, and SSB, 
including those towers, expensive equipment, skills, and years of hard work to 
get the new ones when there was NO FT-8 or similar modes!
So, I do not be begrudge the new low signal computer-aided modes, nor do I cast 
aspersions on the Ops who enjoy using them . . . even though I am unlikely to 
join their ranks, but the Ham community should not penalize those of us who 
used non-FT modes to get our hard earned awards by giving an unfair advantage 
to a new technology. We (Ham Radio) need the New Technology, but these modes 
are sufficiently different in many ways from the older modes that justifies a 
separate category in the award spectrum. Therefore, I urge the ARRL and the CQ 
Magazine leadership to establish a Digital award category that is separate and 
different from the current DXCC et al Digital criteria.
Alan Swinger K9MBQ
Charlottesville, VA



-Original Message-

From: rich_k...@gphilltop.com
Sent: Aug 2, 2019 4:22 PM
To: Harald Rester 
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: 160

As ham radio changes there will remain at least a niche for CW, SSB, and
RTTY and it's competitions. FT8 will supplement the bands , not supplant
it, IMO. Do you think FT8, FT4 and whatever digital modes come along are
the future or will something else take its place? Who knows... time and
technology moves on. Maybe it might attract some of the Millennials to
fill in the void by us Baby Boomers who will all too soon be making.
Let's set a good example for them to follow.

Rich K7ZV



On 2019-08-02 12:42 pm, Harald Rester wrote:
Think about the time *we all *could have been on the air, while staring
at our screens, typing and reading. I make QSY to the shack - Hpe CU!

Harry, DH1NBE




Am 02.08.2019 um 21:26 schrieb uy0zg:


I do not propose stopping the FT8.

just compete with each other.

But keep in mind - Arnold will be the first -)):

https://www.alamy.com/arnold-schwarzenegger-terminator-2-judgment-day-1991-image66516208.html



---
Nick, UY0ZG
http://www.topband.in.ua

W0MU Mike Fatchett писал 2019-08-02 21:52:

Ah so all FT8 users are cheaters. Does that mean that all Russian
hams use way more power than they should and their scores should not
count either?

The real issue here is change. Ham radio has been in constant motion
and change since it started and I hope in continues that way well
after we are dead.

So we better stop FT8 and protect VE1ZZ?

Sorry no.

Good day.


On 8/2/2019 12:45 PM, uy0zg wrote:

Hello, Mike

This is how the world works so that humanity always has moral
values.

They must be protected.
Example:
in a few years, 334 VE1ZZ countries will lose their value. His
achievements will be eaten by computer programs and robots 

It is right ?
Will there be many talents at 160 meters like Jack?

Will not be !

On the contrary - more and more stupidity and envy



---
Nick, UY0ZG
http://www.topband.in.ua

W0MU Mike Fatchett писал 2019-08-02 18:24:

Cheating is cheating. How many people used remote stations,
exceeded
their power limits, etc. Singling out a mode because you are
upset
that it has taken away activity in your preferred mode is not
helpful
to the hobby. Not everyone that use FT8 cheats. Not everyone
that
uses a amp that exceeds their legal limit uses it in that fashion.

How can you guarantee that everyone on the "Honor Role" was 100
percent honorable or even anyone that 

Re: Topband: 160

[donovanf]

Hi Bob 

The "how to" article is right here: 


http://p1k.arrl.org/pubs_archive/63144 


73 
Frank 
W3LPL 

- Original Message -

From: "Robert Brennan via Topband"  
To: "Cecil"  
Cc: "rich k7zv" , "Harald Rester" 
, "Alan Swinger" , 
topband@contesting.com 
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 10:00:03 PM 
Subject: Re: Topband: 160 

Gentleman, 
I have been using ft8 now for a little over a year now and have been relatively 
successful with it. 
I also use CW and SSB. 
If I can set up my station on ft8 and have it run automatically and collect new 
entities. 
I would really like to know how to do that. 
Perhaps one of you can write an article for QST. 

73 Bob ad6hf 

Sent from my iPhone 

> On Aug 2, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Cecil  wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad 
> 
>>> On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:22 PM, Alan Swinger  wrote: 
>> 
>> . Since FT8 operators can walk away and not participate in QSOs, and come 
>> back after some other activity and see how many new countries and QSOs that 
>> the computer made, this is unlike Digital modes where operators must remain 
>> engaged to make QSOs. Therefore, seems to me that such Computer-generated 
>> contacts should have a separate category in the current award systems since 
>> the operators are not directly involved in making the QSOs . . . call it 
>> Computer-Aided Digital or something more clever. No argument that skill is 
>> required to set up a station to make FT-8 contacts, but a different set than 
>> what those of us who work DXCC, Challenge, etc use on CW, RTTY, and SSB, 
>> including those towers, expensive equipment, skills, and years of hard work 
>> to get the new ones when there was NO FT-8 or similar modes! 
>> So, I do not be begrudge the new low signal computer-aided modes, nor do I 
>> cast aspersions on the Ops who enjoy using them . . . even though I am 
>> unlikely to join their ranks, but the Ham community should not penalize 
>> those of us who used non-FT modes to get our hard earned awards by giving an 
>> unfair advantage to a new technology. We (Ham Radio) need the New 
>> Technology, but these modes are sufficiently different in many ways from the 
>> older modes that justifies a separate category in the award spectrum. 
>> Therefore, I urge the ARRL and the CQ Magazine leadership to establish a 
>> Digital award category that is separate and different from the current DXCC 
>> et al Digital criteria. 
>> Alan Swinger K9MBQ 
>> Charlottesville, VA 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message- 
>>> From: rich_k...@gphilltop.com 
>>> Sent: Aug 2, 2019 4:22 PM 
>>> To: Harald Rester  
>>> Cc: topband@contesting.com 
>>> Subject: Re: Topband: 160 
>>> 
>>> As ham radio changes there will remain at least a niche for CW, SSB, and 
>>> RTTY and it's competitions. FT8 will supplement the bands , not supplant 
>>> it, IMO. Do you think FT8, FT4 and whatever digital modes come along are 
>>> the future or will something else take its place? Who knows... time and 
>>> technology moves on. Maybe it might attract some of the Millennials to 
>>> fill in the void by us Baby Boomers who will all too soon be making. 
>>> Let's set a good example for them to follow. 
>>> 
>>> Rich K7ZV 
>>> 
>>> 
 On 2019-08-02 12:42 pm, Harald Rester wrote: 
 Think about the time *we all *could have been on the air, while staring 
 at our screens, typing and reading. I make QSY to the shack - Hpe CU! 
 
 Harry, DH1NBE 
 
 
 
> Am 02.08.2019 um 21:26 schrieb uy0zg: 
> 
> 
> I do not propose stopping the FT8. 
> 
> just compete with each other. 
> 
> But keep in mind - Arnold will be the first -)): 
> 
> https://www.alamy.com/arnold-schwarzenegger-terminator-2-judgment-day-1991-image66516208.html
>  
> 
> 
> 
> --- 
> Nick, UY0ZG 
> http://www.topband.in.ua 
> 
> W0MU Mike Fatchett писал 2019-08-02 21:52: 
>> Ah so all FT8 users are cheaters. Does that mean that all Russian 
>> hams use way more power than they should and their scores should not 
>> count either? 
>> 
>> The real issue here is change. Ham radio has been in constant motion 
>> and change since it started and I hope in continues that way well 
>> after we are dead. 
>> 
>> So we better stop FT8 and protect VE1ZZ? 
>> 
>> Sorry no. 
>> 
>> Good day. 
>> 
>>> On 8/2/2019 12:45 PM, uy0zg wrote: 
>>> 
>>> Hello, Mike 
>>> 
>>> This is how the world works so that humanity always has moral 
>>> values. 
>>> 
>>> They must be protected. 
>>> Example: 
>>> in a few years, 334 VE1ZZ countries will lose their value. His 
>>> achievements will be eaten by computer programs and robots  
>>> 
>>> It is right ? 
>>> Will there be many talents at 160 meters like Jack? 
>>> 
>>> Will not be ! 
>>> 
>>> On the contrary - more and more stupidity and envy 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 

Re: Topband: 160

[Gary Smith]

This bugs the hell out of me. All my RTTY 
DXCC contacts were indeed RTTY, I just 
never applied for DXCC in it. When I did a 
few years back, my cert said "Digital". I 
was disgusted but that's what I get for 
waiting and administrative people changing 
rules to justify their position. Makes me 
angry.

On reflector topic: 160 is my favorite 
band, but I really like 6M for many of the 
same reasons.

73,
Gary
KA1J


> ARRL stopped issuing new RTTY DXCCs in 2011 when it became Digital
> DXCC for RTTY, PSK, JT9, FT8, FT4,.  

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: NR1DX, Dave, Introduction

[Artek Manuals]

I joined the group yesterday so by way of introduction  here is my 
background


I was first licensed in 1961. I remember my first contact on 160M 
vividly, homebrew  6AQ5/807 running about 50 watts and a BC348...I still 
have the receiver but not the home brew transmitter. I had attached 
about 20 feet of wire to the metal flashing that runs around the edge of 
the house and I made a contact with another station in Miami (from 
Tampa) that evening on CW..I still get goose bumps thinking about the 
elation I felt . My other memorable 160M contact was also from Florida, 
with a  9V1  on a text book gray line path my sunset his sunrise. 750 
watts and 60' inverted L. I was always a CW addict, seldom SSB. And 
hours of sorting beeps out of the noise on 160M has likely one of the 
main causes of more than few db of hearing loss after just plain being 
and "old fart" at 72


I have been continuously licensed since the 1961 ( WN4CDN, WA4CDN, 
WD0AQD, N0DH , N7EX, K9NX and finally NR1DX..)Except for brief 
interludes during moves I had been on the air continuously up until 
2005. The rigors of caring for a terminally ill XYL, early retirement 
brought on by the crash in 2008 and a couple of moves (back) to Florida 
found me unable to get back on the air except for a brief period in 2009 
until this year .


I have recently built my retirement dream station; a TS990, KPA1500 Amp 
, 40' Tower with a Stepp-IR 3E (for20-6) , Tree mounted Inverted V for 
30/40 at 60' , Inverted L on 80 and a 60' high "T"  on 160, The later 
two with their own (non resonant ..alah k5IU) 90' elevated  radials. I 
live on a secluded, wooded 1.5 acres and the shack is a stand alone 
building apart from the main house which allows me to scream at the DX 
at 1AM if need be without waking up the new XYL and the dog.


My corporate life had me moving all over the USA from Fl to WA and AZ to 
NH plus several stints in between in TX, MO , IA, Wi , PA and MN. I have 
over 270 countries on 160 but never felt really right about claiming 
that as it is much easier to work JA from Spokane and Europe from New 
Hampshire and SA from Florida. I am not much of a paper award collector 
I know I worked those countries but I still enjoy counting band 
countries worked, The dream station has worked 208 DXCC countries, 972 
"band" countries but only 14 so far on 160. (7 on CW and 7 on FT8). All 
since Feb15th of this year so yeah I am avid DX'r


My love is wire antennas, I model using EZENEC and MMANAN-GAL. I will be 
putting up receiving antennas hopefully between now and the end of 
September , Have room for a couple of 300-350' beverages but mostly E-W 
favored, so will considering steerable loops .


If you live in the greater Tampa, FL area, would love to get together 
and tell stories about antennas and lies about the DX we worked over lunch


Dave
NR1DX
manu...@artekmanuals.com





On 8/3/2019 11:34 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
Of the last 1000 spots downloaded from DX Summit  just over 200 of 
them at on FT8.  Which means that nearly 800 spots were NOT FT8 
meaning those were CW or SSB spots.  Not all of the spots are actually 
spots as many spots are just people venting and using the system as 
their message system.


Are we really not utilizing our bands?

You decide.

W0MU




_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector


--
Dave
manu...@artekmanuals.com
www.ArtekManuals.com


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Review of the last 1000 spots on 160m

[Salvatore Ted K2QMF]

Yeah!!
NAQP CW starts at 1800Z!!
Get on and have some fun!!

On 8/3/2019 12:54:21 PM, kol...@rcn.com  wrote:
Why weep? To me, it sounds like a lot of people got on and had some fun on the 
modes they felt were appropriate. Hey, at least they were actively on the air 
with Ham Radio. If I am going to weep, it's about all the licensed hams who are 
apathetic and never get on the air.

But yes, the best way to promote the more traditional modes is to get on the 
air with them and communicate our love for them with others. I like CW best 
because, for me, it's the most fun. But the other modes are also fun. And fun 
is where YOU find it.

73, Kevin K3OX

- Original Message -
From: k1zm--- via Topband
To: wes n7ws , topband@contesting.com
Sent: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 12:30:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Topband: Review of the last 1000 spots on 160m

Whoa!
That matrix of Clublog contacts made by mode really does make it pretty clear 
to me.
Probably the best thing we can all do to deal with this is to get on CW and SSB 
as often as we may desire to - to keep the traditional modes alive in the 
traditional band segments.
Tks Wes for adding to this conversation.
73 JEFF
In a message dated 2019-08-03 4:27:01 PM Coordinated Universal Time, 
wes_n...@triconet.org writes:

Perhaps more informative, read it and weep: https://clublog.org/dxreport.html

Wes N7WS


On 8/3/2019 8:34 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> Of the last 1000 spots downloaded from DX Summit just over 200 of them at on
> FT8. Which means that nearly 800 spots were NOT FT8 meaning those were CW or
> SSB spots. Not all of the spots are actually spots as many spots are just
> people venting and using the system as their message system.
>
> Are we really not utilizing our bands?
>
> You decide.
>
> W0MU
>
>
>
>
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector


_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector


All Natural CBD Oil Has Doctors Throwing Out Prescriptions
worldhealthlabs.com
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5d45bdcdd3fa3dcc2e8fst01duc
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Review of the last 1000 spots on 160m

[Jorge Diez - CX6VM]

Hello

This data is not representative of mode´s use

people not use to spot FT8, why to do that?

Is just one frequency, no need to S


73,
Jorge




Libre
de virus. www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

El sáb., 3 ago. 2019 a las 12:34, W0MU Mike Fatchett ()
escribió:

> Of the last 1000 spots downloaded from DX Summit  just over 200 of them
> at on FT8.  Which means that nearly 800 spots were NOT FT8 meaning those
> were CW or SSB spots.  Not all of the spots are actually spots as many
> spots are just people venting and using the system as their message system.
>
> Are we really not utilizing our bands?
>
> You decide.
>
> W0MU
>
>
>
>
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>


-- 
73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Review of the last 1000 spots on 160m

[kolson]

Why weep? To me, it sounds like a lot of people got on and had some fun on the 
modes they felt were appropriate. Hey, at least they were actively on the air 
with Ham Radio. If I am going to weep, it's about all the licensed hams who are 
apathetic and never get on the air. 

But yes, the best way to promote the more traditional modes is to get on the 
air with them and communicate our love for them with others. I like CW best 
because, for me, it's the most fun. But the other modes are also fun. And fun 
is where YOU find it.

73, Kevin K3OX
 
- Original Message -
From: k1zm--- via Topband 
To: wes n7ws , topband@contesting.com
Sent: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 12:30:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Topband: Review of the last 1000 spots on 160m

Whoa!
That matrix of Clublog contacts made by mode really does make it pretty clear 
to me.
Probably the best thing we can all do to deal with this is to get on CW and SSB 
as often as we may desire to - to keep the traditional modes alive in the 
traditional band segments.
Tks Wes for adding to this conversation.
73 JEFF
In a message dated 2019-08-03 4:27:01 PM Coordinated Universal Time, 
wes_n...@triconet.org writes:

Perhaps more informative, read it and weep:  https://clublog.org/dxreport.html

Wes  N7WS


On 8/3/2019 8:34 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> Of the last 1000 spots downloaded from DX Summit  just over 200 of them at on 
> FT8.  Which means that nearly 800 spots were NOT FT8 meaning those were CW or 
> SSB spots.  Not all of the spots are actually spots as many spots are just 
> people venting and using the system as their message system.
>
> Are we really not utilizing our bands?
>
> You decide.
>
> W0MU
>
>
>
>
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector


_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Review of the last 1000 spots on 160m

[k1zm--- via Topband]

Whoa!
That matrix of Clublog contacts made by mode really does make it pretty clear 
to me.
Probably the best thing we can all do to deal with this is to get on CW and SSB 
as often as we may desire to - to keep the traditional modes alive in the 
traditional band segments.
Tks Wes for adding to this conversation.
73 JEFF
In a message dated 2019-08-03 4:27:01 PM Coordinated Universal Time, 
wes_n...@triconet.org writes:

Perhaps more informative, read it and weep:  https://clublog.org/dxreport.html

Wes  N7WS


On 8/3/2019 8:34 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> Of the last 1000 spots downloaded from DX Summit  just over 200 of them at on 
> FT8.  Which means that nearly 800 spots were NOT FT8 meaning those were CW or 
> SSB spots.  Not all of the spots are actually spots as many spots are just 
> people venting and using the system as their message system.
>
> Are we really not utilizing our bands?
>
> You decide.
>
> W0MU
>
>
>
>
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector


_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Review of the last 1000 spots on 160m

[Wes]

Perhaps more informative, read it and weep:  https://clublog.org/dxreport.html

Wes  N7WS


On 8/3/2019 8:34 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
Of the last 1000 spots downloaded from DX Summit  just over 200 of them at on 
FT8.  Which means that nearly 800 spots were NOT FT8 meaning those were CW or 
SSB spots.  Not all of the spots are actually spots as many spots are just 
people venting and using the system as their message system.


Are we really not utilizing our bands?

You decide.

W0MU




_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector



_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: WAR!

[Michael Rutkaus]

Thought at first you were talking about working the Pentagon CW station I
did thru MARS in 1959!!

Mikr
K4QET
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: WAR !

[Paul Christensen]

>What I do not understand on all this is.  If the station is running on
itself UN-attended.  Is that just not even legal. Never mind ethical?

Fully automated does not always mean unattended.  In the rare instances I am
on FT8 and it's automated through Quick Macros, I may be parked on the side
of a road or sitting in a nearby restaurant as I check the number of
stations worked with WSJT-X.  By using a VNC app on my iPhone, the legal
control point goes with me wherever I go, whether it's in the shack, the
kitchen, or a thousand miles away.  

It's important to always have the ability to kill the transmitter.  Part of
that ability is automatic in WSJT-X.  If there are too many unanswered TX
cycles (e.g., unanswered CQs), transmission stops until re-enabled via the
iPhone.  A Digital Loggers Ethernet power controller resides in the shack.
Power can be killed to any shack device from the iPhone.  

Of course, the control point is lost if there's ever a loss of Internet
connectivity.  If I was more interested in FT8, that problem would be solved
through periodic polling.  Loss of 'x' number of pings in a set time period
would kill the transmissions.  

Paul, W9AC

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160

[Gary Smith]

To me, I lament little CW on 6M, lots of 
FT8. I have my DXCC in CW, mixed & RTTY 
but now it's Digital. I don't mind FT8 but 
the issue to me is with the ARRL who 
includes all Q's not CW or SSB as digital. 
I would like them to have a separate award 
for each.

I do use FT8, Use JTDX now but it's too 
easy for me to love it. With CW SSB and 
RTTY, you have to manually find the 
station and adjust for the best hearing 
many times, I like the skill in that. FT8 
is a real contact but really, I keep the 
rig on the FT8 frequency and hope to have 
my computer work their computer. A valid 
Q, but my effort was minimal & garners 
little sweat equity in the accumulation of 
contacts compared to the other modes.

I will keep working new ones with FT8 but 
for me, they are in their own separate 
category, just as CW, SB & RTTY are. My 
Mother always used the "Cut your nose to 
spite your face" motto when I would refuse 
to do something I should because I was 
stubborn, For me, not YOU, I'll do FT8 if 
it's the only game in town at the time.

I made Honor Roll but want the last ATNO I 
have left to be CW, I'll take FT8 if 
that's all that's available, but for me, 
the # will not be my ideal quality unless 
it is CW.

My 2 pence...

73,

Gary
KA1J
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: WAR !

[kolson]

Packet radio ran unattended for most guys many years ago. I could be at the 
store and the DX callouts would come and my radio would acknowledge them.

I don't remember this being illegal or immoral...

73, Kevin K3OX

- Original Message -
From: Joe 
To: Mark Lunday , Artek Manuals , 
topband@contesting.com
Sent: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 11:17:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Topband: WAR !

What I do not understand on all this is.

If the station is running on itself UN-attended.

Is that just not even legal. Never mind ethical?

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 8/3/2019 9:20 AM, Mark Lunday wrote:
> Dave, that's interesting.
>
> If I remember correctly, there was a data buoy floating in the Pacific with 
> an HF rig on it. Hams could call the buoy and work it on FT8. Because it 
> reported grid location, callers could work different grids as the thing 
> floated with the currents.
>
> Mark Lunday, WD4ELG
> Greensboro, NC FM06be
> wd4...@arrl.net
> http://wd4elg.blogspot.com
> SKCC #16439 FISTS #17972 QRP ARCI #16497
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
>
>

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: WAR !

[Joe]

I thought an Automatic Station was never ever legal at all.  Except for 
a Beacon.


Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 8/3/2019 10:22 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:

It depends on that specific countries rules.

ARRL is not allowing automated contacts for their awards programs 
anymore.



On 8/3/2019 9:17 AM, Joe wrote:

What I do not understand on all this is.

If the station is running on itself UN-attended.

Is that just not even legal. Never mind ethical?

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 8/3/2019 9:20 AM, Mark Lunday wrote:

Dave, that's interesting.

If I remember correctly, there was a data buoy floating in the 
Pacific with an HF rig on it.  Hams could call the buoy and work it 
on FT8.  Because it reported grid location, callers could work 
different grids as the thing floated with the currents.


Mark Lunday, WD4ELG
Greensboro, NC  FM06be
wd4...@arrl.net
http://wd4elg.blogspot.com
SKCC #16439  FISTS #17972  QRP ARCI #16497
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector





_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector


_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector


_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160

[kolson]

"The dogs bark, but the caravan rolls on" -ancient proverb
 
As I understand it, some of this discussion is based on the romantic idea that 
we old timers had it tough but today it's all easy and without real challenge. 
This charge is nothing new, so a little history might be in order. The history 
of Ham Radio since the advent of the home computer has been the gradual 
replacement of operator intervention with computer initiatives in our operating 
activities. Let's look at some.
 
FT8: 
Is ultimately just another digital mode, the only real difference is that more 
of the automation is built in from the start. But, in principal, any of the 
digital modes (indeed any mode at all) can be made as automated as one desires 
these days. For those under 45 (hi hi), to operate RTTY back in the day 
required a thing called a Terminal Unit to translate the mark/space signals to 
voltage levels to feed a Teletype machine (which was basically a big, noisy, 
heavy duty typewriter). But that hasn't been the reality for RTTY for a long 
time. RTTY is now as easy as downloading a program, only marginally more 
difficult than operating FT8. After all, the packet cluster can give you the 
who and where and the program tunes your radio to the proper frequency. You 
press "send" until you get a reply (if you are working a rare DX counter 
operating split there can be some more to it) and the computer logs it after 
you make the contact and can even send the logging in to LOTW for credit.
 
DXing: 
Originally required hours and hours in front of the radio, tuning and looking 
for the DX. Now there were things like DX nets, and newsletters/bulletins and 
the like to help a bit and DXpeditions were publicised in magazines and word of 
mouth. But with the advent of the computer and packet radio, all that changed. 
Decades ago, a friend of mine developed a computer program to track your DX 
totals and generate mailing labels for the QSL's. He interfaced that with the 
Packet and when a new coun... err... entity came on the air, his computer would 
send "DX" (in CW, of course) and he could walk back to the shack, work the 
counter and go back to the ball game. Quite a culture shock for the guys still 
tuning around on their National HRO's. Now the DX cluster is an entrenched 
reality along with Skimmer etc. No sitting in front of the rig necessary. And 
QSLing in the day was a royal PITA, now you just print out the labels and 
download the LOTW credits.
 
Contesting:
There is a film (now video, produced by a NFL films dude!) from decades ago on 
YouTube that shows the DX contest from the perspective of a bunch of the 
Frankford Radio Club participants. Again, if you are not over 45 it may be a 
bit of a mystery what's going on. There is no Packet cluster, so DX callouts 
happened on 2m FM! And you will see lots of paper. They are Log Sheets (where 
you wrote down your contacts) and Cross Check sheets (where you kept track of 
you contacts by listing them alphabetically so you wouldn't work too many 
duplicate contacts). After the contest, you would have to "redupe" your log to 
try and catch dupes that got past in the heat of battle, this would take a week 
or two of intermittent effort. And a fabulous talent for a contester to have 
was a good level of call recall (hi hi), the more guys you rememberd you worked 
the less you had to refer to the Cross Check sheet. Of course, all this is 
gone, replaced by our computer running a program like N1MM (or CT in th
 e olden times). 
  
I could go on (but mercifully won't), the point is that this is all part of a 
natural progression, an inevitable part of human innovation. To me, the guys 
who really have a beef are the guys from after WW2 until the computer era. You 
could argue that we have devalued their accomplishments (you can also argue 
they had more fun, but that's another post). But I would argue that everyone's 
accomplishments stand on their own according to their time, circumstances and 
operating preferences. Hank Aaron didn't devalue Babe Ruth. I would also argue 
that the world keeps turning and the caravan is inexorable...
 
73, Kevin K3OX  

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: Review of the last 1000 spots on 160m

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

Of the last 1000 spots downloaded from DX Summit  just over 200 of them 
at on FT8.  Which means that nearly 800 spots were NOT FT8 meaning those 
were CW or SSB spots.  Not all of the spots are actually spots as many 
spots are just people venting and using the system as their message system.


Are we really not utilizing our bands?

You decide.

W0MU




_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160

[Mark Richardson]

QST April 1972  page 63   “On Several Modern Advances in Armature Radio”



Just a thought exercise then,  Now it could be a reality.



Mark

W7HPW


   --.
  /  Don't take life so seriously, __/
 /   it's not permanent.  /
 \_.-'
 _ |/
oo\'
   (__)\   _
 \  \.'  `.
  \  \  /  \
   \  '"\
\  (  )  \
 '-| )--| :.  \
   | |  | | \  '.
  c__; c__;  '-..'>.__


_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: WAR !

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

It depends on that specific countries rules.

ARRL is not allowing automated contacts for their awards programs anymore.


On 8/3/2019 9:17 AM, Joe wrote:

What I do not understand on all this is.

If the station is running on itself UN-attended.

Is that just not even legal. Never mind ethical?

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 8/3/2019 9:20 AM, Mark Lunday wrote:

Dave, that's interesting.

If I remember correctly, there was a data buoy floating in the 
Pacific with an HF rig on it.  Hams could call the buoy and work it 
on FT8.  Because it reported grid location, callers could work 
different grids as the thing floated with the currents.


Mark Lunday, WD4ELG
Greensboro, NC  FM06be
wd4...@arrl.net
http://wd4elg.blogspot.com
SKCC #16439  FISTS #17972  QRP ARCI #16497
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector





_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector


_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: WAR !

[Joe]

What I do not understand on all this is.

If the station is running on itself UN-attended.

Is that just not even legal. Never mind ethical?

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 8/3/2019 9:20 AM, Mark Lunday wrote:

Dave, that's interesting.

If I remember correctly, there was a data buoy floating in the Pacific with an 
HF rig on it.  Hams could call the buoy and work it on FT8.  Because it 
reported grid location, callers could work different grids as the thing floated 
with the currents.

Mark Lunday, WD4ELG
Greensboro, NC  FM06be
wd4...@arrl.net
http://wd4elg.blogspot.com
SKCC #16439  FISTS #17972  QRP ARCI #16497
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector




_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

When was the 6m band fully utilized?  The bottom end of the band is full 
of beacons or was. Then DX Cw then CW then some SSB.   What was being 
utilized above 51mhz?


10m-unless we have great sun spots the band is next to dead.  I can 
recall a few contests where there was SSB activity up to 29.000.


Who caused the DXpeditions to go to FT8.  We did.  We the DX demanded 
that they work as many people as possible. Especially getting people in 
the log at least once.  FT8 became that medium and now DXers are 
complaining about it.  So now DXpeditions have to band their heads 
against the wall trying to work people on SSB and CW on bands that are 
pretty lousy.  10, 15, 20, 12, 17?


I am saddened that to make a point we have to try to scare people about 
our spectrum.  This is classic politics and what we see on the news 
everyday anymore.  Fear fear fear fear fear especially when things are 
changed in a direction some don't like.


Once again the only ones that count are those that don't the mode.  
Those happily using it, making contacts, enjoying the hobby don't count.


This thread is really eye opening to who we are as people and hams.

Sad.



On 8/3/2019 5:20 AM, k1zm--- via Topband wrote:


Hi Again Folks
Been reading all the mail and WOW - I did not mean for this debate to take over 
the 160m reflector again.
But I CAN ADD something to this discussion.  So I will
YES - THERE IS FOR SURE AN AUTOMATED CAPABILITY ON FT8 - There may be more 
software versions out there that do this but MSHV by LZ2HV sure can and it 
queues up to 5 stations at a time and then works them and then starts with 
another CQ to work the next batch of 5 incoming callers.
I have tried it on 6m and then just sat back in the chair and watched it all 
happen.
While this is all going on, you can read CQ or QST and then every now and then check your 
log or screen to see what "YOU WORKED" (sic!).

Despite this fact there is a much larger issue here and some have spoken to it 
already - as will I.
WARC Potential Impacts
As we all know spectrum space is very finite and commercial interests would 
probably salivate at some of our LF and MF spectrum as well as VHF.
There may come a time (probably not in my lifetime though) when some portions 
of our sacred bands and gobbled up by the FCC and other global authorities and 
then granted to other interests.
Heresy?  Yes  but if large segments of our bands are not used and this becomes 
widely known - then that day may surely come.
EXAMPLE - 6m runs from 50-54 MEGACYCLES.    With 50.313, 50,323 and a few other 
single KILOCYCLES being those primarily used - there is a clearly LOGICAL 
argument that we do not NEED 4 MEGACYCLES of space.  As an amateur I do not 
like this logic but it is clearly a compelling argument that can be used as a 
WEDGE to cause OTHERS to change their minds about what is now protected amateur 
spectrum.
Think about it -.  Cannot the same argument be used on 10m where we own 
1.7MHZ of spectrum - or sad to say that 160m gets reduced one day to 1825-1840.
As someone nearing the twilight of my lifetime, I doubt I will live to see this 
or another solar cycle like 1957-58 ( GROAN! HI!) - but that day might be 
coming.
And with all this FT8 - well the threat is very real.
One more BY THE WAY's.
Some good friends of mine are now on the air from St Paul Island (CY9C) - and  
about 90% of their first 2 days of operation have been on FT8 - I have seen a 
little CW but no SSB so far.
AND THE FLAMES - that are showing up on DX SUMMIT indicate that many world ops 
do not like this - here are a few comments  I saw yesterday:
"jEEZUZ - ANOTHER DAMNED FT8 DxPedition"
"Do you guys know any other modes?"
"Another GAMEBOY Dx'pedition!"
"Do any of your ops know CW or SSB?"
I have noted N1UR's comments about future Dx'peditions - and Ed may well be 
right about this - because the trend line is clear.

Hell - if you turn on MSHV on 20M and just let her rip - you can go outside and 
put up the antennas for the other bands -
OR
Take a NAP - and come back in a few hours to see who "YOU WORKED!!" Sic.
I fear this is not just another mode - it is already demonstrated that it is a 
gamechanger.
Forget the awards impact - (That is like trying to save the CURTAINS when your 
house is on FIRE!)
The clear future impact that really matters is what might this do to our BAND 
ALLOCATIONS in the near future!.
Anyway that's my view - so I will now go back to MONITORING MODE.
73 JEFF
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector


_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: WAR !

[Mark Lunday]

Dave, that's interesting.

If I remember correctly, there was a data buoy floating in the Pacific with an 
HF rig on it.  Hams could call the buoy and work it on FT8.  Because it 
reported grid location, callers could work different grids as the thing floated 
with the currents.

Mark Lunday, WD4ELG
Greensboro, NC  FM06be
wd4...@arrl.net
http://wd4elg.blogspot.com
SKCC #16439  FISTS #17972  QRP ARCI #16497
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: WAR !

[Artek Manuals]

Taking the 160M FT8 rant further ( nothing better to do)

As I was out clearing a path through the jungle this morning in 
preparation for the 2 wire beverage it occurred to me that what we 
REALLY NEED is a "WAR Award" Worked All Robots !



Then following this thread further and paraphrasing one of my favorite 
TV Sitcom geeks , Sheldon Cooper from Big Bang, I decided to try "FUN 
with Robots".
I easily found a well known FT8 robot with a  "1" land call,  Pretty 
sure he is a robot since you can find him calling CQ on FT8 on multiple 
bands at the same time,  24 hours/day. So I called the robot had a QSO, 
then after the ROBOT said 73 and called CQ again , I called him again 
and we had a 2nd very nice QSO , after the 3rd QSO in a row I grew tired 
of the game, ( the Robot didn't..plucky fellow) . I then started a 4th 
contact , but truncated it on my end after the "RR73" ... the robot 
continued to call me for verification seven more times before it gave up 
and went back to calling CQ.


Now I am not saying you should fight fire with fire ...just saying it 
can be done


Been nice fellows...

Lets have lunch and have your Robot give my Robot a call :-)
Dave
NR1DX
dit dit

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: FW: Re: 160

[FZ Bruce]

-From: "FZ Bruce" 
To: "k...@aol.com"
Cc: "topband@contesting.com"
Sent: Saturday August 3 2019 9:27:32AM
Subject: Re: Topband: 160

I totally agree Jeff. I think we are headed in a dangerous direction.
Total automation is not good.
Example: Like in the near future, maybe I have to send my self driving
car up to Bangor Maine to pick up something on sale at the loading
dock of a big box store. Or get a delivery of an item by drone, that
turns up missing or damaged by an unforeseen weather event.,
When I make a 160 meter contact, I want it to be with another live
human in direct control, not a "machine" in direct control.
73Bruce

-From: "k1zm--- via Topband" 
To: topband@contesting.com
Cc: 
Sent: Saturday August 3 2019 7:20:24AM
Subject: Re: Topband: 160

 Hi Again Folks
 Been reading all the mail and WOW - I did not mean for this debate to
take over the 160m reflector again.
 But I CAN ADD something to this discussion. So I will
 YES - THERE IS FOR SURE AN AUTOMATED CAPABILITY ON FT8 - There may be
more software versions out there that do this but MSHV by LZ2HV sure
can and it queues up to 5 stations at a time and then works them and
then starts with another CQ to work the next batch of 5 incoming
callers.
 I have tried it on 6m and then just sat back in the chair and watched
it all happen.
 While this is all going on, you can read CQ or QST and then every now
and then check your log or screen to see what "YOU WORKED" (sic!).

 Despite this fact there is a much larger issue here and some have
spoken to it already - as will I.
 WARC Potential Impacts
 As we all know spectrum space is very finite and commercial interests
would probably salivate at some of our LF and MF spectrum as well as
VHF.
 There may come a time (probably not in my lifetime though) when some
portions of our sacred bands and gobbled up by the FCC and other
global authorities and then granted to other interests.
 Heresy? Yes but if large segments of our bands are not used and this
becomes widely known - then that day may surely come.
 EXAMPLE - 6m runs from 50-54 MEGACYCLES. With 50.313, 50,323 and a
few other single KILOCYCLES being those primarily used - there is a
clearly LOGICAL argument that we do not NEED 4 MEGACYCLES of space. As
an amateur I do not like this logic but it is clearly a compelling
argument that can be used as a WEDGE to cause OTHERS to change their
minds about what is now protected amateur spectrum.
 Think about it -. Cannot the same argument be used on 10m where
we own 1.7MHZ of spectrum - or sad to say that 160m gets reduced one
day to 1825-1840.
 As someone nearing the twilight of my lifetime, I doubt I will live
to see this or another solar cycle like 1957-58 ( GROAN! HI!) - but
that day might be coming.
 And with all this FT8 - well the threat is very real.
 One more BY THE WAY's.
 Some good friends of mine are now on the air from St Paul Island
(CY9C) - and about 90% of their first 2 days of operation have been on
FT8 - I have seen a little CW but no SSB so far.
 AND THE FLAMES - that are showing up on DX SUMMIT indicate that many
world ops do not like this - here are a few comments I saw yesterday:
 "jEEZUZ - ANOTHER DAMNED FT8 DxPedition"
 "Do you guys know any other modes?"
 "Another GAMEBOY Dx'pedition!"
 "Do any of your ops know CW or SSB?"
 I have noted N1UR's comments about future Dx'peditions - and Ed may
well be right about this - because the trend line is clear. 

 Hell - if you turn on MSHV on 20M and just let her rip - you can go
outside and put up the antennas for the other bands -
 OR
 Take a NAP - and come back in a few hours to see who "YOU WORKED!!"
Sic.
 I fear this is not just another mode - it is already demonstrated
that it is a gamechanger.
 Forget the awards impact - (That is like trying to save the CURTAINS
when your house is on FIRE!)
 The clear future impact that really matters is what might this do to
our BAND ALLOCATIONS in the near future!.
 Anyway that's my view - so I will now go back to MONITORING MODE.
 73 JEFF
 _
 Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband [1] - Topband
Reflector
 

Links:
--
[1] http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160

[FZ Bruce]

I totally agree Jeff. I think we are headed in a dangerous direction.
Total automation is not good.
Example: Like in the near future, maybe I have to send my self driving
car up to Bangor Maine to pick up something on sale at the loading
dock of a big box store. Or get a delivery of an item by drone, that
turns up missing or damaged by an unforeseen weather event.,
When I make a 160 meter contact, I want it to be with another live
human in direct control, not a "machine" in direct control.
73Bruce

-From: "k1zm--- via Topband" 
To: topband@contesting.com
Cc: 
Sent: Saturday August 3 2019 7:20:24AM
Subject: Re: Topband: 160

 Hi Again Folks
 Been reading all the mail and WOW - I did not mean for this debate to
take over the 160m reflector again.
 But I CAN ADD something to this discussion. So I will
 YES - THERE IS FOR SURE AN AUTOMATED CAPABILITY ON FT8 - There may be
more software versions out there that do this but MSHV by LZ2HV sure
can and it queues up to 5 stations at a time and then works them and
then starts with another CQ to work the next batch of 5 incoming
callers.
 I have tried it on 6m and then just sat back in the chair and watched
it all happen.
 While this is all going on, you can read CQ or QST and then every now
and then check your log or screen to see what "YOU WORKED" (sic!).

 Despite this fact there is a much larger issue here and some have
spoken to it already - as will I.
 WARC Potential Impacts
 As we all know spectrum space is very finite and commercial interests
would probably salivate at some of our LF and MF spectrum as well as
VHF.
 There may come a time (probably not in my lifetime though) when some
portions of our sacred bands and gobbled up by the FCC and other
global authorities and then granted to other interests.
 Heresy? Yes but if large segments of our bands are not used and this
becomes widely known - then that day may surely come.
 EXAMPLE - 6m runs from 50-54 MEGACYCLES. With 50.313, 50,323 and a
few other single KILOCYCLES being those primarily used - there is a
clearly LOGICAL argument that we do not NEED 4 MEGACYCLES of space. As
an amateur I do not like this logic but it is clearly a compelling
argument that can be used as a WEDGE to cause OTHERS to change their
minds about what is now protected amateur spectrum.
 Think about it -. Cannot the same argument be used on 10m where
we own 1.7MHZ of spectrum - or sad to say that 160m gets reduced one
day to 1825-1840.
 As someone nearing the twilight of my lifetime, I doubt I will live
to see this or another solar cycle like 1957-58 ( GROAN! HI!) - but
that day might be coming.
 And with all this FT8 - well the threat is very real.
 One more BY THE WAY's.
 Some good friends of mine are now on the air from St Paul Island
(CY9C) - and about 90% of their first 2 days of operation have been on
FT8 - I have seen a little CW but no SSB so far.
 AND THE FLAMES - that are showing up on DX SUMMIT indicate that many
world ops do not like this - here are a few comments I saw yesterday:
 "jEEZUZ - ANOTHER DAMNED FT8 DxPedition"
 "Do you guys know any other modes?"
 "Another GAMEBOY Dx'pedition!"
 "Do any of your ops know CW or SSB?"
 I have noted N1UR's comments about future Dx'peditions - and Ed may
well be right about this - because the trend line is clear. 

 Hell - if you turn on MSHV on 20M and just let her rip - you can go
outside and put up the antennas for the other bands -
 OR
 Take a NAP - and come back in a few hours to see who "YOU WORKED!!"
Sic.
 I fear this is not just another mode - it is already demonstrated
that it is a gamechanger.
 Forget the awards impact - (That is like trying to save the CURTAINS
when your house is on FIRE!)
 The clear future impact that really matters is what might this do to
our BAND ALLOCATIONS in the near future!.
 Anyway that's my view - so I will now go back to MONITORING MODE.
 73 JEFF
 _
 Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband [1] - Topband
Reflector
 

Links:
--
[1] http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160

[Alan Swinger]

Lloyd - I may have overstated but did so to make the point that the Mode is 
sufficiently different from others that it and companion modes should have a 
separate award category and not lumped in with  the current ones. - Alan K9MBQ


-Original Message-
>From: Lloyd - N9LB 
>Sent: Aug 2, 2019 7:57 PM
>To: topband@contesting.com
>Subject: Re: Topband: 160
>
>Alan, respectfully, it doesn’t sound like you ever looked at Joe Taylor's WSJT 
>program and you do not understand the facts of FT8.
>
>Operators can NOT "walk away and not participate in making QSOs" as the 
>program is written.  Yes, a very small number of people have hacked W1JT's 
>program to run continuously, but 99.99% of the FT8 users are human and 
>actively involved in making the QSO.
>
>WSJT/FT8 is very similar to the popular MMTTY RTTY program - click on a 
>decoded call displayed on the screen to enter that call into the program and 
>click on a button to start calling.
>
>To use WSJT/FT8 you must:
>Select mode of operation
>Set up eight menu screens, 
>Type of decode,
>Select initial RX and TX frequencies ( simplex or split, and what split )
>Deal with QRM / interference / use your skill to QSY around the band segment 
>as conditions
>And that does not include all the usual stuff: selecting the band, select the 
>antenna, aim the antenna, set power, etc.
> 
>Here is link to "WSJT-X - FT8 and Beyond", the Keynote Speech of Joe Taylor, 
>K1JT, 21 June 2019 at the Friedrichshafen Hamvention. 
>http://dokufunk.org/amateur_radio/contributions/?CID=9458#A28986
>
>Shall we also disqualify CW ops who use memory keyers and CW decoders?  Nope
>
>Shall we also disqualify phone ops who use voice recorders or synthesized 
>voices or voice recognition programs?  Nope
>
>It is all just new technology - get used to change!   Change is inevitable. 
>
>73
>
>Lloyd - N9LB
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Alan Swinger
>Sent: Friday, August 02, 2019 4:22 PM
>To: rich_k...@gphilltop.com; Harald Rester 
>Cc: topband@contesting.com
>Subject: Re: Topband: 160
>
>Below is Letter for QST on this subject that may (or not) be published FYI. 
>Glad to hear AA1K back calling CQ on CW in the AM. I am there too looking for 
>CW DX. - 73, Alan K9MBQ
>
> If Hams who use WSJT/FT modes enjoy using them, by all means do so.
>However, I strongly disagree with and object to the fact that QSOs made in 
>these modes count for DXCC Digital awards in the same way as RTTY, PSK, etc 
>do. Since FT8 operators can walk away and not participate in QSOs, and come 
>back after some other activity and see how many new countries and QSOs that 
>the computer made, this is unlike Digital modes where operators must remain 
>engaged to make QSOs. Therefore, seems to me that such Computer-generated 
>contacts should have a separate category in the current award systems since 
>the operators are not directly involved in making the QSOs . . . call it 
>Computer-Aided Digital or something more clever. No argument that skill is 
>required to set up a station to make FT-8 contacts, but a different set than 
>what those of us who work DXCC, Challenge, etc use on CW, RTTY, and SSB, 
>including those towers, expensive equipment, skills, and years of hard work to 
>get the new ones when there was NO FT-8 or similar modes!
>So, I do not be begrudge the new low signal computer-aided modes, nor do I 
>cast aspersions on the Ops who enjoy using them . . . even though I am 
>unlikely to join their ranks, but the Ham community should not penalize those 
>of us who used non-FT modes to get our hard earned awards by giving an unfair 
>advantage to a new technology. We (Ham Radio) need the New Technology, but 
>these modes are sufficiently different in many ways from the older modes that 
>justifies a separate category in the award spectrum.  Therefore, I urge the 
>ARRL and the CQ Magazine leadership to establish a Digital award category that 
>is separate and different from the current DXCC et al Digital criteria.
>Alan Swinger K9MBQ
>Charlottesville, VA
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>>From: rich_k...@gphilltop.com
>>Sent: Aug 2, 2019 4:22 PM
>>To: Harald Rester 
>>Cc: topband@contesting.com
>>Subject: Re: Topband: 160
>>
>>As ham radio changes there will remain at least a niche for CW, SSB, 
>>and RTTY and it's competitions. FT8 will supplement the bands , not 
>>supplant it, IMO. Do you think FT8, FT4 and whatever digital modes come 
>>along are the future or will something else take its place? Who 
>>knows... time and technology moves on. Maybe it might attract some of 
>>the Millennials to fill in the void by us Baby Boomers who will all too soon 
>>be making.
>>Let's set a good example for them to follow.
>>
>>Rich K7ZV
>>
>>
>>On 2019-08-02 12:42 pm, Harald Rester wrote:
>>> Think about the time *we all *could have been on the air, while 
>>> staring at our screens, typing and reading. I make QSY to the shack - Hpe 
>>> CU!
>>> 

Re: Topband: 160

[Artek Manuals]

To further Paul's point , CW "readers" have been around for decades. 
Automating the reply process on CW seems to me to be a "relatively 
simple" programing exercise with a USB keyer.� Heck by adding the 
ability to activate the frequency scan of most modern transceivers to 
mix I can scan up and down the band looking for or calling CQ with a CW 
robot if I wanted to, again the programing exercise is trivial compared 
to the original FT8 concept and the technology involved in weak signal 
processing that came out of deep space telelmtry


One major difference between CW and FT8 is that with CW (and RTTY for 
that matter) you really need to "search" a range of frequencies to find 
a station to work. perhaps FT8/FT4 will/needs to evolve to say a "range 
of frequencies" say 14075 to 14100 (not a proposal just an example) 
rather than collecting� every one on 14074 (most major dxpeditions do 
this now by necessity) ...With the growing popularity of FT8 seems like 
the 50 or so subchannels available is quickly filling up at peak times. 
The net of this has been inexperienced ops sadly not paying attention to 
the waterfall display to see if anyone is using the a particular� audio 
subschannel before calling on top of someone else. No surprise there 
either, I am always amazed at how many CW ops call on the DX frequency 
even though the OP sends "UP" at the end of every transmission.


For those of you banging at the gates with your pitchforks wanting to 
burn the monster at the stake I say get out your pen and paper in 
October and send in your paper log for Sweepstakes, unplug your memory 
keyer and go back to your J-38.� Yeah if they invented time travel for 
real tomorrow, I would likely go back to 1965 in a heart beat, but I 
will miss my computer terribly. I will miss the fact that I can run a KW 
on 6M and never have to worry about TVI to Channel 2 or 3. Though I am 
seldom a new technology adopter ( I came to FT8 only this year) ..change 
is inevitable ...evolve or die my friends. Life ( and amateur radio for 
that matter) is never "easy" or really comfortable.


Dave
NR1DX

On 8/2/2019 10:47 PM, Paul Christensen wrote:
If I can set up my station on ft8 and have it run automatically and 
collect new entities...
If you want to fully automate FT8, there's a presentation available on 
YouTube. It only requires installing Quick Macros (QM). No hacking to 
the core program is required. During my setup, it was necessary to 
start, stop and replay the video many times before it was running 
correctly. But once running, it's easy enough to further automate 
WSJT-X to change bands based on the PC clock (e.g., operate 17m-6m 
only during daylight hours. The next logical step is to automate based 
on propagation software as well as automatically turn rotators and 
switch antennas based on propagation software prediction.


Be aware that once QM is controlling WSJT-X, you can move around 
WSJT-X windows on the desktop but you cannot resize a window where any 
control takes place. Any tampering of the window size almost 
necessitates reprogramming QM macros.


I'm a core CW op. That won't change even if I'm the last CW OP 
standing. Despite automating FT8, I rarely operate that mode and I 
don�t collect awards. Never have. The exercise to fully automate was 
to prove to myself that it was possible, and as an experiment to see 
how far automation can be taken.


Paul, W9AC

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector


--
Dave
manu...@artekmanuals.com
www.ArtekManuals.com


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160

[k1zm--- via Topband]

Hi Again Folks
Been reading all the mail and WOW - I did not mean for this debate to take over 
the 160m reflector again.
But I CAN ADD something to this discussion.  So I will
YES - THERE IS FOR SURE AN AUTOMATED CAPABILITY ON FT8 - There may be more 
software versions out there that do this but MSHV by LZ2HV sure can and it 
queues up to 5 stations at a time and then works them and then starts with 
another CQ to work the next batch of 5 incoming callers.
I have tried it on 6m and then just sat back in the chair and watched it all 
happen.
While this is all going on, you can read CQ or QST and then every now and then 
check your log or screen to see what "YOU WORKED" (sic!).

Despite this fact there is a much larger issue here and some have spoken to it 
already - as will I.
WARC Potential Impacts
As we all know spectrum space is very finite and commercial interests would 
probably salivate at some of our LF and MF spectrum as well as VHF.
There may come a time (probably not in my lifetime though) when some portions 
of our sacred bands and gobbled up by the FCC and other global authorities and 
then granted to other interests.
Heresy?  Yes  but if large segments of our bands are not used and this becomes 
widely known - then that day may surely come.
EXAMPLE - 6m runs from 50-54 MEGACYCLES.    With 50.313, 50,323 and a few other 
single KILOCYCLES being those primarily used - there is a clearly LOGICAL 
argument that we do not NEED 4 MEGACYCLES of space.  As an amateur I do not 
like this logic but it is clearly a compelling argument that can be used as a 
WEDGE to cause OTHERS to change their minds about what is now protected amateur 
spectrum.
Think about it -.  Cannot the same argument be used on 10m where we own 
1.7MHZ of spectrum - or sad to say that 160m gets reduced one day to 1825-1840.
As someone nearing the twilight of my lifetime, I doubt I will live to see this 
or another solar cycle like 1957-58 ( GROAN! HI!) - but that day might be 
coming.
And with all this FT8 - well the threat is very real.
One more BY THE WAY's.
Some good friends of mine are now on the air from St Paul Island (CY9C) - and  
about 90% of their first 2 days of operation have been on FT8 - I have seen a 
little CW but no SSB so far.
AND THE FLAMES - that are showing up on DX SUMMIT indicate that many world ops 
do not like this - here are a few comments  I saw yesterday:
"jEEZUZ - ANOTHER DAMNED FT8 DxPedition"
"Do you guys know any other modes?"
"Another GAMEBOY Dx'pedition!"
"Do any of your ops know CW or SSB?"
I have noted N1UR's comments about future Dx'peditions - and Ed may well be 
right about this - because the trend line is clear. 

Hell - if you turn on MSHV on 20M and just let her rip - you can go outside and 
put up the antennas for the other bands -
OR
Take a NAP - and come back in a few hours to see who "YOU WORKED!!" Sic.
I fear this is not just another mode - it is already demonstrated that it is a 
gamechanger.
Forget the awards impact - (That is like trying to save the CURTAINS when your 
house is on FIRE!)
The clear future impact that really matters is what might this do to our BAND 
ALLOCATIONS in the near future!.
Anyway that's my view - so I will now go back to MONITORING MODE.
73 JEFF
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160

[Hans Hjelmström]

Agree 100 % with  Ed N1UR.
Its the same situation on 6 meters. Most expeditions go ONLY FT 8 nowadays.It 
gives more QSO:s ,it looks like.And more or less no options to find good 
openings on old modes.

I will never go FT 8 , because I feel, many many QSO on FT 8 , you do not hear 
anything 
in your own ears from the station youwork..  I understand there is many 
many with
also big audio making qso between each others on FT 8,  BUT also even more 
making
qso ,,, without hearing anything. You need ,,,according to me,,, no 
efforts, no challenge,
and no human touch to each others.  Most times, there is a completely empty band
on both 6 and 160….BUT people do a lot of connections with their computers,
handling the traffic.   IF only arrl, did not allow connections below 0 db in 
any band dxcc,
and had a separate FT 8 ( unheard signals connection ) award ,that should solve 
a lot.
I asked them about this possibility about 2 years ago,and only got a very 
arrogant 
answer, on a fair question.

Last thing. What will happen, when authorities  find out, that Ham radio only 
need a
few few kc:s in future. Probably we will loose most of our bands of today.

In 20 years from now, also ,, CW is gone for ever. Any newcomers to our so 
loved 
hobby, do not need to make that effort to try and learn CW.They will play
a computer game instead.Probably they will not do that for 50 years as we did. 
They probably get bored within a few years.

Finally, of course,  everyone do what they prefer. This discussion is ONLY ment 
to put light on the  possible future for our hobby,and how is best for us Hams
and clubs ( like arrl )  how to handle it.How should we adjust our hobby for 
the best.?

Absolutely no bad feelings for these doing FT 8, BUT  I think it will kill our 
hobby.

Kind regards
Hans SM6CVX
> 3 aug 2019 kl. 12:51 skrev Ed Sawyer :
> 
> Folks, for me, the real issue is the lack of people coming on CW on 160M for
> DXpeditions.  Lets be honest, many people don't like the struggle of Qs on
> 160 like we do.  And many are not great at CW.  By using FT8 on 160, they
> can "satisfy" topbanders while they operate on another band at the same time
> - routinely done all the time now by the way.  Is that automated?  Don't
> really care personally.  The problem is they just don't show up on CW.
> Increasingly, for the whole DXpedition.  So that has added an additional
> element to 160 DXing for me - prop, competition, and praying they get on CW.
> 
> 
> 
> I made the choice early on - not using FT8 and kidding myself that is
> somehow me working the station - plus honestly, its not fun.  Might be
> satisfying to see the counter go green, but if you compare it to sex, I
> think it will make sense.  If your robot does it, is it the same?  Enough
> said.
> 
> 
> 
> It really doesn't even matter about the award discussion.  If DXpeditions
> are not operating 160 on CW, who cares?
> 
> 
> 
> For me, its trashed 160M DXIng.  And I am sure I am not alone.
> 
> 
> 
> You will find me on the bands working whoever is left.  But the quest for
> 160M countries is over for me.  Sad but done.
> 
> 
> 
> Ed  N1UR
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160

[Ed Sawyer]

Folks, for me, the real issue is the lack of people coming on CW on 160M for
DXpeditions.  Lets be honest, many people don't like the struggle of Qs on
160 like we do.  And many are not great at CW.  By using FT8 on 160, they
can "satisfy" topbanders while they operate on another band at the same time
- routinely done all the time now by the way.  Is that automated?  Don't
really care personally.  The problem is they just don't show up on CW.
Increasingly, for the whole DXpedition.  So that has added an additional
element to 160 DXing for me - prop, competition, and praying they get on CW.

 

I made the choice early on - not using FT8 and kidding myself that is
somehow me working the station - plus honestly, its not fun.  Might be
satisfying to see the counter go green, but if you compare it to sex, I
think it will make sense.  If your robot does it, is it the same?  Enough
said.

 

It really doesn't even matter about the award discussion.  If DXpeditions
are not operating 160 on CW, who cares?

 

For me, its trashed 160M DXIng.  And I am sure I am not alone.

 

You will find me on the bands working whoever is left.  But the quest for
160M countries is over for me.  Sad but done.

 

Ed  N1UR

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector