Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

In the context of this discussion I think RTTY is an "in between" mode. Decoding is done with a computer (or in the radio if you have a K3) but I've never seen a decode on a signal that I couldn't hear or see on the spectrum display. As a non-contest DX chaser, I find that it often takes

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

I second this as I was learning about some other modes...now whether I (to )use them or not is another story and a personal one (for each to decide). Tnx Renée, K6FSB On 2017-05-21 03:40 PM, Mike Waters wrote: There are two separate threads in this thread. 1. One is the effectiveness of the

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

Hi Rick, That's a very good question indeed! If we would go back through the Topband archives, I think that a major factor in this is the CW skill of the operator. Some are not so good (and we should not berate them for their lack of ability!); and those fellows will benefit more from the

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

There are two separate threads in this thread. 1. One is the effectiveness of the JT modes. Let's keep that going, by all means! 2. The other is an issue of emotion. How about if we just drop that part? Please?:-) 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Cecil Acuff

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

On the contrary Cecil; I think that due to the fact that this long-going thread has not had people ejected from the list nor has had intervention by the moderator shows that all of us are indeed trying to be Gentlemen by addressing the issues and not throwing rocks at people for their positions.

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

Ok, per your request, here's Joe Taylor's first reply (thank you, Joe! :-). My second question --and Joe's reply-- follows, below the first reply. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Joe Taylor wrote: > On 5/14/2017 11:36 PM, Mike Waters wrote: > >> Ok,

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

This discussion is going nowhere...and will continue to go nowhere with the exception of the ill will it spreads...on of all places...a group to discuss things related to "The Gentlemans Band" None of the modes of operations discussed are violations of anyone's licenses so there is no real

Re: Topband: to JT or not to JT

Ok...I guess that's a hint to shut up. 73 de Vince, VA3VF QRT. On 2017-05-21 5:07 PM, Dale Putnam wrote: Have a great day, --... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy "Actions speak louder than words" 1856 - Abraham Lincoln _ Topband Reflector Archives -

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

Mark, Very well said, but unless you consider the JT modes in a different class still than RTTY and PSK, except for mixed mode awards/contests, there is already a level playing field. Mixed is, well, mixed, but everything else is separate already. One cannot apply for an SSB award with JT

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

Because I use my human skill that I developed over years to decode the CW signal. You don't do that for RTTY. Unless of course you're referring to using a CW decoder wherein you just read the decoded CW. You REALLY don't want to know what I fell about people that do that and say they "work

Re: Topband: to JT or not to JT

Have a great day, --... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy "Actions speak louder than words" 1856 - Abraham Lincoln From: Topband on behalf of DXer Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 12:38 PM To: topband@contesting.com

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

Very well said Mark, thank you. Brian K8BHZ On 5/21/2017 4:29 PM, Mark K3MSB wrote: The issue is not one of any mode being more "valid" that the other, nor is it one of a QSO being "valid" or "invalid" based upon the mode.If a two way exchange is completed between two legally

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

The issue is not one of any mode being more "valid" that the other, nor is it one of a QSO being "valid" or "invalid" based upon the mode.If a two way exchange is completed between two legally licensed amateur stations using lawfully authorized modes, the QSO is valid.I think it's that

Re: Topband: P.O.A.

However, if they have internet capabilities in P5, then can work themselves. -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of DXer Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 12:18 PM To: Topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: P.O.A. Hi Paul, Think about an

Re: Topband: to JT or not to JT

QRP is not a mode per se, but after alot of 'pressure', the ARRL relented and now issues a DXCC QRP award, albeit unnumbered, and outside of the mainstream DXCC. Nobody has been forced to apply for one, as far as I know. :^) 73 de Vince, VA3VF On 2017-05-21 2:28 PM, DXer wrote: Hi JC,

Re: Topband: to JT or not to JT

Hi JC, That's true, but it is an endorsement for WAS. And since the DXCC categories were not delivered to us a part of the 10 commandments, it can change at any moment. :^) 73 de Vince, VA3VF On 2017-05-21 2:09 PM, JC wrote: JT is not CW and not SSB, why it is not a category by itself.

Re: Topband: to JT or not to JT

JT is not CW and not SSB, why it is not a category by itself. SSB CW and Digital. DXCC JT modes. Regards JC N4IS -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Sean Waite Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 12:47 PM To: Nick Maslon - K1NZ ;

Re: Topband: to JT or not to JT

In reality, this is why we have triple play and mode specific awards. The CW only people can stay on CW, sideband on sideband, etc. In a way, Joe Taylor and the wsjt developers are probably more in the spirit of amateur radio than someone running a shack in a box on CW. Pushing the limits and

Re: Topband: P.O.A.

And don't forget remotes. While they may not be feasible from every location and operation, it allows the DXpedioner to be at both ends of the same QSO. 73 de Vince, VA3VF On 2017-05-21 12:17 PM, DXer wrote: Hi Paul, Think about an eventual P5 activation, a mega one, with lots of ops. The

Re: Topband: P.O.A.

Hi Paul, Think about an eventual P5 activation, a mega one, with lots of ops. The likelyhood that many of them will not have P5 already confirmed, is a real possibility. They will be there making a lot of people happy, but not adding that ATNO themselves, unless another ham operate from their

Re: Topband: P.O.A.

On the other hand... Tim Pettis, KL7WE (SK), in chasing WAS on 432, was known to visit needed rare states with a portable EME station, put it on from there, and work his own station (as well as others) to get credit for those states. Another ham would operate his home station. This action of

Re: Topband: P.O.A.

Hi Barry, Very early on, I decided that any valid personal QSO, would have to be made not only by me, but using my own station. This decision has kept me off the air for long stretches of time, and that was, and still is, fine with me. I don't have a problem with those thinking differently.

Re: Topband: N7QT on "Increasing the Rate of the JT Modes"

Hi Larry, People are still debating about when to consider a QSO complete. As you mentioned, if you received a report, and sent a report back, the QSO is in theory complete. However, there is no confirmation that the other station received your report, hence the use of RRR. Others want

Re: Topband: to JT or not to JT

The way I see it, do what you enjoy. That's what's great about this hobby. There are so many things you can do and digimodes and JT are just one of them. Here's an example for you guys. Warwick, E51WL is, as far as I know, the only active ham on one of the North Cook Islands. He only works JT

Topband: P.O.A.

Brian, your comments about digital modes made me think back on times "BDM," (before digital modes). The occurrence I'm about to describe clarified what it takes for me to feel accomplishment in the "on the air" part of Ham radio. This happened over 40 years ago. While I was on one of 20

Re: Topband: N7QT on "Increasing the Rate of the JT Modes"

Thank you for the link, Tim. The first ideas/suggestions mentioned in the article are being used by an increasing number of operators. JT65-HF-HB9HQX and JTDX helped that by adding variations to the original standard messages. There was some discussion when these variations were introduced,

Topband: If you're not tapping the coherer with a baby food spoon...

Those kids and their new fangled automatic tappers! 73, -Bob ah7i/w4 -- -do not look into LASER with remaining eye! _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: N7QT on "Increasing the Rate of the JT Modes"

The traditional JT65 QSOs are a bit like watching grass grow. But a couple of DXpeditions have run some JT65 lately. But I have had a number of cases where I called CQ and stations responded with a signal report. After responding with a signal report the QSO was considered complete. Some

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

As an electrical engineer you should realize that your rig _also_ turns otherwise undetected signals into something you can hear. Open the window, hearing any DX? - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 11:47 PM

Topband: N7QT on "Increasing the Rate of the JT Modes"

In the latest ARRL Contest Update, N7QT has a very interesting article on increasing rate with the usually slow JT65 modes, from a max of one QSO every 6 minutes to one every 4 minutes. K7ADD notes an additional doubling of rate can be achieved if you can keep two QSO's in flight at any point in

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

Glenn nailed it. If you don't like it, don't use it. No one is forcing anyone to comply. It is really that simple. Mike va3mw > On May 21, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Glenn Wyant wrote: > > If an amateur has interest in psk, jt65 etc or EME, cw or any band > or mode; it is

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

If an amateur has interest in psk, jt65 etc or EME, cw or any band or mode; it is not for us to judge his particular interests. VA3DX - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 11:47 PM Subject: Re: Topband: Top Band