Re: Topband: 160

[donroden]

Disclaimer here …..  I've never used FT-X … I still have a copy of  
DIGIPAN on a laptop somewhere that I used on PSK-31 a decade or so ago.


From this discussion, it "appears" that FT is a "one-button push" mode.

My question to the group :

If you are in your local ( not remote ) ham shack watching this process, and
IF the original software writer had intended for his software to
make THREE QSOs before the process stops. does NOT pressing the  
button a second or third time somehow invalidate the last two QSOs ?


If the software would somehow alert the operator to press the button again
with a beep or screen flash at the end of a completed QSO,
 would that be acceptable ?

It all seems so impersonal to me … . .  regardless of the number of presses.


Don W4DNR





Quoting Cecil :

You manually start a CQ sequence that can run unanswered for 15  
minutes...but if answered and “answer first” is selected an auto  
sequence of trading signal reports ensues until the QSO is  
successfully completed or fails at which time the process stops  
until the operator starts the process again. It won’t start again on  
its own unless the operator starts it.


If it functions any differently it’s either been modified or is  
being manipulated by a macro...neither of which was part of the  
software writers intent or design...period!



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

Re: Topband: 160

[Billy Cox]

Good Evening/Morning All,

A technically incorrect statement was made, the statement began with:
"FT8 (and FT4) does not work like that. ..." and then things went sour.

In less than 60 seconds a Google search provided evidence, that indeed
such automated technical ability has actually existed for some time now.

Perhaps such use was not intended by the software authors, however the 
reality is that the new mode has been automated, and there it gets messy. 

This "hobby" is/was based on a high technical content. As the topic is
being discussed here, should the information not be accurate and truthful?

Instead, this week we have seen posts with a non-technical attitude of
emotions, options, and "if you don't like it, tough, move on" expressed. 

K4SAV also once again presented interesting information as to have we
in our haste to adopt this mode, really verified it is all it promises?

What was offered as an alternative, not requiring a large station, is that
statement really true once we add the stronger stations into the pileups?

The proposed new mode contest, and mini-contests in the next few weeks may 
help to provide answers to questions, such as will the 'robots' stand out?

How will we know, and if caught, then what? Design smarter 'robots'?

Is this really AI (Artificial Intelligence) now entering the "human hobby"?

Is this all good, some good, some bad, all bad? Can this be managed?

I can see both good and bad so far, as it is a very interesting challenge
when we attempt to merge all of the technology differences into one bucket.

Is that really the right or the only possible solution here to consider?

Straw arguments are one thing, I provided evidence the technical ability
for automation is already in place. Interesting no one wanted to admit
that earlier as another post (but no source for verification) suggested that 
this practice in already being used by some possibly on this very forum?

Is that true or false? I do not know. Other similar statements of the straw
man argument have been offered, is that data true? Again I do not know.

Other questions ... and I have many more questions than answers at this point
so don't put me in either the "for" or "against" pile. What is true/accurate?

If a DXpedition chooses to not operate SSTV, but my passion is on SSTV, then
has my enjoyment of the hobby has been 'gutted' (to use my word) or limited?

If a station chooses to not operate CW (or insert your favorite mode here) in
the evenings, and only operates on (insert a less favorite mode) here, then?

Is FT8 just a fad, or is it a game changer? Are there measurable and positive
benefits that out way some  of the known and unknown concerns known today?

Is there more going on here other than a mode change from 'spark' to now this?

Are the bands really open more ... do folks now believe that only via a new mode
will result in working DX? Perhaps next time ask a station to QSY to CW and see?

(I did not mention SSB, as technically there is a ~10db loss over CW overall).

Given the current status of the DXCC/other awards as to integrity, will FT8
add value to strengthen the programs or lead to a lower level of value???

BTW, the idea "good op lists" and "bad op lists" won't work. How would one
prevent someone from intentionally using someone else's callsign and being a
lid with the goal of having that station placed on the "bad op list". 

Other mode memory technology still requires some form of human involvement
today, it's not necessarily as automated as this new mode is at present. 

I have my own list of concerns on this change, some are positive some are not,
but I am using an engineering department mantra, perhaps you have heard of it?

"Trust, but verify"

If the technical content of our hobby is going to remain in place and at a high
standard, then we need to look past the subjective opinions and together closely
look at all of the data, not just what might support one view and not others.

Other modes at some level of technically ability have the same "auto" potential,
not perhaps practical today, but could be tomorrow. And that's only 24 hours 
away.

I remember as a young teenage ham, reading an article in a CQ magazine telling 
the
story of two hams who had not seen each other in some time paths crossing, and 
one
ham asked the other to stop by his station and they would chat. The story 
continues
with the meeting taking place there and it goes roughly something like this ... 

They walk into the "shack" area, which looks like a lobby.

The visiting ham asks, "Why is there a secretary? And I don't see any gear?"

The reply is something like, "Oh, she does the QSLs and manages the records,
all the gear, and it's noise and heat is in another room with the computers."

IIRC the secretary mentions something to the main op about the band conditions.

The visiting ham asks, "But who is running the station, and turning all those
big antennas I saw when I drove here today, and deciding who/what 

Re: Topband: 160

[Ross Johnson]

Hi Fred
Could no stop laughing at your post.

73  Ross  ZL3RJ

-- Original Message --
From: fmoe...@twc.com
To: "'topband@contesting.com'" 
Sent: 3/08/2019 10:48:10 a.m.
Subject: Topband: 160


I really wish I could find the robot that runs my FT-8 station.I would
have him put up a Beverage or two and work on the tower.I tired of
doing all the work around here.
ThanksFred KB4QZH

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


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

Re: Topband: 160

[Paul Christensen]

>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

Re: Topband: 160

[Phil Duff]

> On 8/2/19 7:06 PM, GEORGE WALLNER wrote:
>>  Just don't mix his achievement with mine. (Is RTTY really a digital mode? 
>> It seems to be very analog these days.)
>> 73,
>> George,
>> AA7JV
>> 


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

Same as SSB, AM, FM  all count as Phone DXCC.

So I suppose we can assume the old RTTY DXCC achievements have become defacto 
Digital DXCCs and have been contaminated with other digital modes since 2011.

http://www.arrl.org/news/rtty-dxcc-award-now-known-as-digital-dxcc-award

de Phil NA4M

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
















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

Re: Topband: 160

[Jeff Blaine]

This makes complete sense to me.  You are right - FTx is a different 
beastie and compared with RTTY, the latter takes a ton more HUMAN work 
to bag the week ones.


73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
www.ac0c.com


On 8/2/19 7:06 PM, GEORGE WALLNER wrote:

Nobody is talking about "shutting" anything down.
Quite the opposite: expand the DXCC program by creating a new 
category! FT-x is sufficiently different to justify that. The skills 
need for FT-x are different from those required for the traditional 
modes. A new award category would reflect that.

I would go further, but I don't think too far:
FT-x could be crucial to HAM radio's future. On a recent mini 
DXpedition I asked a young and recently licensed HAM to operate FT-8. 
He said, sure, give me a minute. He brought his laptop (not the one 
that was part of the FT-8 station) and proceeded to operate FT-8, 
while using his laptop to watch a movie and was looking at Facebook, 
and he was in chats with friends (and HAM-s) on his phone. I was 
somewhat peeved, until I came to realize that this is how the new 
generation lives: multi-threading using their electronic devices. 
Unlike us, most of them are not willing to put on the head-phones and 
concentrate on weak CW signals for hours, to the exclusion of 
everything else. They don't live like that and they will not enjoy a 
hobby like that. It is not my place to judge whether this is good or 
bad. It is what it is. But to attract this new "multi-activity 
generation" to HAM radio (an entire generation, not just the odd kid), 
the hobby must offer a mode that is compatible with how they live. 
FT-8 is perfect for that: it can be operated remotely from a 
smart-phone via an app, while riding a bus or train and doing other 
things... And, yes, it can be automated.
There will be nothing wrong with a young HAM working 100 countries in 
a month while not even at his station. Good for him! Just don't mix 
his achievement with mine. (Is RTTY really a digital mode? It seems to 
be very analog these days.)

73,
George,
AA7JV





On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 17:05:23 -0500
 Cecil  wrote:



Sent from my iPad

On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Cecil  wrote:

This is nonsense


That is only possible if someone has modified the software and is 
cheating the system...which I might add could be done with computers 
and creative software writing to any of the digital modes including 
CW


That is cheating and not grounds for disallowance from total DXCC 
participation for all users.


Certainly I can do that for one QSO if I need to run to the bathroom 
or grab a quick cup of coffee etcbut if you believe for a second 
that the FT8 software is designed to crank it up, walk away for a 
couple hours and come back later to tally up your take as you 
describe you are showing your lack of knowledge of WSJT’s design.


Am I suggesting that some are not doing that...no...not for a 
minute.  Would I suggest that all DXers are running no more than the 
legal limit when chasing a new one or no more than 200 watts on 30 
meters, or not using a remote station element to gain an unfair 
advantage to add a new one...nope.

But it is happening...

Should we shut down the entire awards system because the possibility 
exists that someone will cheat...I think not.


I for one think you should rethink your article before submission 
Alan...


Respectfully

Cecil
K5DL
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, 


_
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

[Mark K3MSB]

Agreed George.   It's (past) time for mode specific single band awards.
There's nothing preventing our alleged "national organization" from doing
so, only the will to do so.


On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:06 PM GEORGE WALLNER  wrote:

> Nobody is talking about "shutting" anything down.
> Quite the opposite: expand the DXCC program by creating a new category!
> FT-x
> is sufficiently different to justify that. The skills need for FT-x are
> different from those required for the traditional modes. A new award
> category would reflect that.
> I would go further, but I don't think too far:
> FT-x could be crucial to HAM radio's future. On a recent mini DXpedition I
> asked a young and recently licensed HAM to operate FT-8. He said, sure,
> give
> me a minute. He brought his laptop (not the one that was part of the FT-8
> station) and proceeded to operate FT-8, while using his laptop to watch a
> movie and was looking at Facebook, and he was in chats with friends (and
> HAM-s) on his phone. I was somewhat peeved, until I came to realize that
> this is how the new generation lives: multi-threading using their
> electronic
> devices. Unlike us, most of them are not willing to put on the head-phones
> and concentrate on weak CW signals for hours, to the exclusion of
> everything
> else. They don't live like that and they will not enjoy a hobby like that.
> It is not my place to judge whether this is good or bad. It is what it is.
> But to attract this new "multi-activity generation" to HAM radio (an
> entire
> generation, not just the odd kid), the hobby must offer a mode that is
> compatible with how they live. FT-8 is perfect for that: it can be
> operated
> remotely from a smart-phone via an app, while riding a bus or train and
> doing other things... And, yes, it can be automated.
> There will be nothing wrong with a young HAM working 100 countries in a
> month while not even at his station. Good for him! Just don't mix his
> achievement with mine. (Is RTTY really a digital mode? It seems to be very
> analog these days.)
> 73,
> George,
> AA7JV
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 17:05:23 -0500
>   Cecil  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >> On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Cecil  wrote:
> >>
> >> This is nonsense
> >
> >> That is only possible if someone has modified the software and is
> cheating the system...which I might add could be done with computers and
> creative software writing to any of the digital modes including CW
> >
> > That is cheating and not grounds for disallowance from total DXCC
> participation for all users.
> >
> > Certainly I can do that for one QSO if I need to run to the bathroom or
> grab a quick cup of coffee etcbut if you believe for a second that the
> FT8 software is designed to crank it up, walk away for a couple hours and
> come back later to tally up your take as you describe you are showing your
> lack of knowledge of WSJT’s design.
> >
> > Am I suggesting that some are not doing that...no...not for a minute.
> Would I suggest that all DXers are running no more than the legal limit
> when chasing a new one or no more than 200 watts on 30 meters, or not using
> a remote station element to gain an unfair advantage to add a new
> one...nope.
> >
> > But it is happening...
> >
> > Should we shut down the entire awards system because the possibility
> exists that someone will cheat...I think not.
> >
> > I for one think you should rethink your article before submission Alan...
> >
> > Respectfully
> >
> > Cecil
> > K5DL
>  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,
> >
> > _
> > 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

[Cecil]

I would agree a separate DXCC award should be established for operators using 
remote stations that exceed a certain distance from the control point...like a 
station half way around the world. To me that has more impact on a level 
playing field and working rare ones than a mode like FT8...

Cecil
K5DL

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 2, 2019, at 7:37 PM, Cecil  wrote:
> 
> Agree...
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On Aug 2, 2019, at 7:29 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 2019-08-02 8:06 PM, GEORGE WALLNER wrote:
>>> expand the DXCC program by creating a new category! FT-x is
>>> sufficiently different to justify that. The skills need for FT-x are
>>> different from those required for the traditional modes.
>> 
>> Absolutely not!  All modes used for DXCC have more skills in common
>> than they have differences.  There is more difference between CW and
>> SSB than there is among RTTY, PSKxx, FTx - yet all count for DXCC
>> Mixed.  The key for any mode is knowing what band/time to choose
>> (when propagation is most favorable) and understanding where the
>> other station is listening.  Those apply to FTx as much as CW or SSB.
>> 
>> 73,
>> 
>>  ... Joe, W4TV
>> 
>> 
>>> On 2019-08-02 8:06 PM, GEORGE WALLNER wrote:
>>> Nobody is talking about "shutting" anything down.
>>> Quite the opposite: expand the DXCC program by creating a new category! 
>>> FT-x is sufficiently different to justify that. The skills need for FT-x 
>>> are different from those required for the traditional modes. A new award 
>>> category would reflect that.
>>> I would go further, but I don't think too far:
>>> FT-x could be crucial to HAM radio's future. On a recent mini DXpedition I 
>>> asked a young and recently licensed HAM to operate FT-8. He said, sure, 
>>> give me a minute. He brought his laptop (not the one that was part of the 
>>> FT-8 station) and proceeded to operate FT-8, while using his laptop to 
>>> watch a movie and was looking at Facebook, and he was in chats with friends 
>>> (and HAM-s) on his phone. I was somewhat peeved, until I came to realize 
>>> that this is how the new generation lives: multi-threading using their 
>>> electronic devices. Unlike us, most of them are not willing to put on the 
>>> head-phones and concentrate on weak CW signals for hours, to the exclusion 
>>> of everything else. They don't live like that and they will not enjoy a 
>>> hobby like that. It is not my place to judge whether this is good or bad. 
>>> It is what it is. But to attract this new "multi-activity generation" to 
>>> HAM radio (an entire generation, not just the odd kid), the hobby must 
>>> offer a mode that is compatible with how they live. FT-8 is perfect for 
>>> that: it can be operated remotely from a smart-phone via an app, while 
>>> riding a bus or train and doing other things... And, yes, it can be 
>>> automated.
>>> There will be nothing wrong with a young HAM working 100 countries in a 
>>> month while not even at his station. Good for him! Just don't mix his 
>>> achievement with mine. (Is RTTY really a digital mode? It seems to be very 
>>> analog these days.)
>>> 73,
>>> George,
>>> AA7JV
>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 17:05:23 -0500
>>> Cecil  wrote:
 
 
 Sent from my iPad
> On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Cecil  wrote:
> 
> This is nonsense
 
> That is only possible if someone has modified the software and is 
> cheating the system...which I might add could be done with computers and 
> creative software writing to any of the digital modes including CW
 
 That is cheating and not grounds for disallowance from total DXCC 
 participation for all users.
 
 Certainly I can do that for one QSO if I need to run to the bathroom or 
 grab a quick cup of coffee etcbut if you believe for a second that the 
 FT8 software is designed to crank it up, walk away for a couple hours and 
 come back later to tally up your take as you describe you are showing your 
 lack of knowledge of WSJT’s design.
 
 Am I suggesting that some are not doing that...no...not for a minute.  
 Would I suggest that all DXers are running no more than the legal limit 
 when chasing a new one or no more than 200 watts on 30 meters, or not 
 using a remote station element to gain an unfair advantage to add a new 
 one...nope.
 But it is happening...
 
 Should we shut down the entire awards system because the possibility 
 exists that someone will cheat...I think not.
 
 I for one think you should rethink your article before submission Alan...
 
 Respectfully
 
 Cecil
 K5DL
>>> 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, 
 
 _
 Searchable Archives: 

Re: Topband: 160

[Cecil]

Agree...

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 2, 2019, at 7:29 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 2019-08-02 8:06 PM, GEORGE WALLNER wrote:
>> expand the DXCC program by creating a new category! FT-x is
>> sufficiently different to justify that. The skills need for FT-x are
>> different from those required for the traditional modes.
> 
> Absolutely not!  All modes used for DXCC have more skills in common
> than they have differences.  There is more difference between CW and
> SSB than there is among RTTY, PSKxx, FTx - yet all count for DXCC
> Mixed.  The key for any mode is knowing what band/time to choose
> (when propagation is most favorable) and understanding where the
> other station is listening.  Those apply to FTx as much as CW or SSB.
> 
> 73,
> 
>   ... Joe, W4TV
> 
> 
>> On 2019-08-02 8:06 PM, GEORGE WALLNER wrote:
>> Nobody is talking about "shutting" anything down.
>> Quite the opposite: expand the DXCC program by creating a new category! FT-x 
>> is sufficiently different to justify that. The skills need for FT-x are 
>> different from those required for the traditional modes. A new award 
>> category would reflect that.
>> I would go further, but I don't think too far:
>> FT-x could be crucial to HAM radio's future. On a recent mini DXpedition I 
>> asked a young and recently licensed HAM to operate FT-8. He said, sure, give 
>> me a minute. He brought his laptop (not the one that was part of the FT-8 
>> station) and proceeded to operate FT-8, while using his laptop to watch a 
>> movie and was looking at Facebook, and he was in chats with friends (and 
>> HAM-s) on his phone. I was somewhat peeved, until I came to realize that 
>> this is how the new generation lives: multi-threading using their electronic 
>> devices. Unlike us, most of them are not willing to put on the head-phones 
>> and concentrate on weak CW signals for hours, to the exclusion of everything 
>> else. They don't live like that and they will not enjoy a hobby like that. 
>> It is not my place to judge whether this is good or bad. It is what it is. 
>> But to attract this new "multi-activity generation" to HAM radio (an entire 
>> generation, not just the odd kid), the hobby must offer a mode that is 
>> compatible with how they live. FT-8 is perfect for that: it can be operated 
>> remotely from a smart-phone via an app, while riding a bus or train and 
>> doing other things... And, yes, it can be automated.
>> There will be nothing wrong with a young HAM working 100 countries in a 
>> month while not even at his station. Good for him! Just don't mix his 
>> achievement with mine. (Is RTTY really a digital mode? It seems to be very 
>> analog these days.)
>> 73,
>> George,
>> AA7JV
>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 17:05:23 -0500
>>  Cecil  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
 On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Cecil  wrote:
 
 This is nonsense
>>> 
 That is only possible if someone has modified the software and is cheating 
 the system...which I might add could be done with computers and creative 
 software writing to any of the digital modes including CW
>>> 
>>> That is cheating and not grounds for disallowance from total DXCC 
>>> participation for all users.
>>> 
>>> Certainly I can do that for one QSO if I need to run to the bathroom or 
>>> grab a quick cup of coffee etcbut if you believe for a second that the 
>>> FT8 software is designed to crank it up, walk away for a couple hours and 
>>> come back later to tally up your take as you describe you are showing your 
>>> lack of knowledge of WSJT’s design.
>>> 
>>> Am I suggesting that some are not doing that...no...not for a minute.  
>>> Would I suggest that all DXers are running no more than the legal limit 
>>> when chasing a new one or no more than 200 watts on 30 meters, or not using 
>>> a remote station element to gain an unfair advantage to add a new 
>>> one...nope.
>>> But it is happening...
>>> 
>>> Should we shut down the entire awards system because the possibility exists 
>>> that someone will cheat...I think not.
>>> 
>>> I for one think you should rethink your article before submission Alan...
>>> 
>>> Respectfully
>>> 
>>> Cecil
>>> K5DL
>> 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, 
>>> 
>>> _
>>> 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

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2019-08-02 8:06 PM, GEORGE WALLNER wrote:

expand the DXCC program by creating a new category! FT-x is
sufficiently different to justify that. The skills need for FT-x are
different from those required for the traditional modes.


Absolutely not!  All modes used for DXCC have more skills in common
than they have differences.  There is more difference between CW and
SSB than there is among RTTY, PSKxx, FTx - yet all count for DXCC
Mixed.  The key for any mode is knowing what band/time to choose
(when propagation is most favorable) and understanding where the
other station is listening.  Those apply to FTx as much as CW or SSB.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-08-02 8:06 PM, GEORGE WALLNER wrote:

Nobody is talking about "shutting" anything down.
Quite the opposite: expand the DXCC program by creating a new category! 
FT-x is sufficiently different to justify that. The skills need for FT-x 
are different from those required for the traditional modes. A new award 
category would reflect that.

I would go further, but I don't think too far:
FT-x could be crucial to HAM radio's future. On a recent mini DXpedition 
I asked a young and recently licensed HAM to operate FT-8. He said, 
sure, give me a minute. He brought his laptop (not the one that was part 
of the FT-8 station) and proceeded to operate FT-8, while using his 
laptop to watch a movie and was looking at Facebook, and he was in chats 
with friends (and HAM-s) on his phone. I was somewhat peeved, until I 
came to realize that this is how the new generation lives: 
multi-threading using their electronic devices. Unlike us, most of them 
are not willing to put on the head-phones and concentrate on weak CW 
signals for hours, to the exclusion of everything else. They don't live 
like that and they will not enjoy a hobby like that. It is not my place 
to judge whether this is good or bad. It is what it is. But to attract 
this new "multi-activity generation" to HAM radio (an entire 
generation, not just the odd kid), the hobby must offer a mode that is 
compatible with how they live. FT-8 is perfect for that: it can be 
operated remotely from a smart-phone via an app, while riding a bus or 
train and doing other things... And, yes, it can be automated.
There will be nothing wrong with a young HAM working 100 countries in a 
month while not even at his station. Good for him! Just don't mix his 
achievement with mine. (Is RTTY really a digital mode? It seems to be 
very analog these days.)

73,
George,
AA7JV





On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 17:05:23 -0500
  Cecil  wrote:



Sent from my iPad

On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Cecil  wrote:

This is nonsense


That is only possible if someone has modified the software and is 
cheating the system...which I might add could be done with computers 
and creative software writing to any of the digital modes including 
CW


That is cheating and not grounds for disallowance from total DXCC 
participation for all users.


Certainly I can do that for one QSO if I need to run to the bathroom 
or grab a quick cup of coffee etcbut if you believe for a second 
that the FT8 software is designed to crank it up, walk away for a 
couple hours and come back later to tally up your take as you describe 
you are showing your lack of knowledge of WSJT’s design.


Am I suggesting that some are not doing that...no...not for a minute.  
Would I suggest that all DXers are running no more than the legal 
limit when chasing a new one or no more than 200 watts on 30 meters, 
or not using a remote station element to gain an unfair advantage to 
add a new one...nope.

But it is happening...

Should we shut down the entire awards system because the possibility 
exists that someone will cheat...I think not.


I for one think you should rethink your article before submission Alan...

Respectfully

Cecil
K5DL
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, 


_
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

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

Have any of you taken the time to write your Division Directors to ask 
for changes and add FT-x as a separate award?   That does not solve the 
real issue here which is people have abandoned CW for FT8 and it made 
people upset.


W0MU


On 8/2/2019 6:06 PM, GEORGE WALLNER wrote:

Nobody is talking about "shutting" anything down.
Quite the opposite: expand the DXCC program by creating a new 
category! FT-x is sufficiently different to justify that. The skills 
need for FT-x are different from those required for the traditional 
modes. A new award category would reflect that.

I would go further, but I don't think too far:
FT-x could be crucial to HAM radio's future. On a recent mini 
DXpedition I asked a young and recently licensed HAM to operate FT-8. 
He said, sure, give me a minute. He brought his laptop (not the one 
that was part of the FT-8 station) and proceeded to operate FT-8, 
while using his laptop to watch a movie and was looking at Facebook, 
and he was in chats with friends (and HAM-s) on his phone. I was 
somewhat peeved, until I came to realize that this is how the new 
generation lives: multi-threading using their electronic devices. 
Unlike us, most of them are not willing to put on the head-phones and 
concentrate on weak CW signals for hours, to the exclusion of 
everything else. They don't live like that and they will not enjoy a 
hobby like that. It is not my place to judge whether this is good or 
bad. It is what it is. But to attract this new "multi-activity 
generation" to HAM radio (an entire generation, not just the odd kid), 
the hobby must offer a mode that is compatible with how they live. 
FT-8 is perfect for that: it can be operated remotely from a 
smart-phone via an app, while riding a bus or train and doing other 
things... And, yes, it can be automated.
There will be nothing wrong with a young HAM working 100 countries in 
a month while not even at his station. Good for him! Just don't mix 
his achievement with mine. (Is RTTY really a digital mode? It seems to 
be very analog these days.)

73,
George,
AA7JV





On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 17:05:23 -0500
 Cecil  wrote:



Sent from my iPad

On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Cecil  wrote:

This is nonsense


That is only possible if someone has modified the software and is 
cheating the system...which I might add could be done with computers 
and creative software writing to any of the digital modes including 
CW


That is cheating and not grounds for disallowance from total DXCC 
participation for all users.


Certainly I can do that for one QSO if I need to run to the bathroom 
or grab a quick cup of coffee etcbut if you believe for a second 
that the FT8 software is designed to crank it up, walk away for a 
couple hours and come back later to tally up your take as you 
describe you are showing your lack of knowledge of WSJT’s design.


Am I suggesting that some are not doing that...no...not for a 
minute.  Would I suggest that all DXers are running no more than the 
legal limit when chasing a new one or no more than 200 watts on 30 
meters, or not using a remote station element to gain an unfair 
advantage to add a new one...nope.

But it is happening...

Should we shut down the entire awards system because the possibility 
exists that someone will cheat...I think not.


I for one think you should rethink your article before submission 
Alan...


Respectfully

Cecil
K5DL
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, 


_
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

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

Gutting the hobby?  We are entitled to our own opinions.  There are a 
bunch of people having a blast on FT8 that seem to think differently.


What is your goal to get FT8 banned?  Why would the ARRL do this? They 
sell awards and 60 percent of LOTW confirms are coming in on FT8.  Never 
happening.


I never said it wasn't automated.  I watch some SV doing it a year or 
more ago.  You cannot say the because a few are doing it everyone is 
doing it.


My straw men are just as important as yours by the way.   :)

W0MU

On 8/2/2019 5:25 PM, Billy Cox wrote:

No Mike, the reality is Gary was incorrect and there is no need to
go negative toward others who disagree as done in recent posts.

Read the details Mike, watch the video ... it's AUTOMATED. It's not
cheating (per say) or is it? That's another interesting thought ...

No need to wave your hands and create straw argument again on this.

This is not about just another mode ... this is about changing the
face of the hobby, and 'gutting' what others may still enjoy.

So, now that the reality is the mode can and is being automated,
what is the next step? As to the ARRL ban ... oh, yea that will work.

(And yes Tree and a few others experimented with this years ago on CW)

Billy, AA4NU


On August 2, 2019 at 6:10 PM W0MU Mike Fatchett  wrote:


So does this mean that everyone uses this cheat?  No.

By the way the ARRL has banned automatic unattended contacts from their
programs at the last board meeting.   This means that the operator must
be instigating the contacts.

Curiously many many many years ago, a fellow by the call of N6TR created
a "robot" that made Sweepstakes contacts.  It was not very clever but it
was done.

The only reason you can walk away with the stock program is that once
the qso starts the remaining sequences are indeed automated. So you can
walk away for about 30 seconds.  I am pretty certain that this could
also be done with RTTY if it hasn't been already.

So how many people are fully automated?  10, 100? 1000?    How many
people uses power over their licensing?  10, 100, 1000?  Both get you
booted from ARRL programs.  Why is one ok and the other is not?  Just
curious.

What percent of ARRL participants are doing it right?  Nearly everyone
other than the few outliers.  If we can get a list of these automated
callsigns we could easily create a black list and not work them.

I am appalled that people would attempt to strong arm DX peditions from
using a completely legal mode that nets more contacts.  Amazing sick!

W0MU

On 8/2/2019 4:55 PM, Billy Cox wrote:

Good Afternoon All,

Gary, then explain this please?

  From http://edtk.de/

Start "Run Mode" In Run mode, CQs are called continuously, closed QSOs are logged 
automatically. After logged or timed out QSOs, the Program recalls CQ. After some unsuccessful CQ 
calls, the FT8 helper goes to sleep for about 2 minutes before he starts calling CQs again.   - Run 
mode should always be operated with "Hold Tx Freq"

Or this?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byJyxYi4I8Q

Thanks,

Billy, AA4NU



On August 2, 2019 at 5:16 PM Gary - K7EK via Topband  
wrote:


FT8 (and FT4) does not work like that. An operator must be present to initiate 
contacts as well as logging completed contacts, and intervening in case of 
sequencing problems, which can occur frequently. The FT modes were 
intentionally written by K1JT to prevent fully automatic unattended operation. 
PLEASE,   know of what you speak instead of parroting what ignorant cynics tell 
you.  They have no life and nothing better to do than bitch and whine and moan 
about things they haven't taken time to understand. Do not believe everything 
you are told. You will be made to look as foolish as the cynics as you enable 
them and propagate their rubbish. I work with FT8 and FT4 daily (CW too! CWOPS 
997 and FISTS #3951 amongst others) and am a WSJTX and JTDX software tester. I 
know the JT packages quite intimately and what's being propagated just ain't so 
(urban legend?). Get a life!

Best regards,

Gary, K7EK

⁣Sent from BlueMail ​

On Aug 2, 2019, 14:46, at 14:46, 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 

Re: Topband: 160

[GEORGE WALLNER]

Nobody is talking about "shutting" anything down.
Quite the opposite: expand the DXCC program by creating a new category! FT-x 
is sufficiently different to justify that. The skills need for FT-x are 
different from those required for the traditional modes. A new award 
category would reflect that.

I would go further, but I don't think too far:
FT-x could be crucial to HAM radio's future. On a recent mini DXpedition I 
asked a young and recently licensed HAM to operate FT-8. He said, sure, give 
me a minute. He brought his laptop (not the one that was part of the FT-8 
station) and proceeded to operate FT-8, while using his laptop to watch a 
movie and was looking at Facebook, and he was in chats with friends (and 
HAM-s) on his phone. I was somewhat peeved, until I came to realize that 
this is how the new generation lives: multi-threading using their electronic 
devices. Unlike us, most of them are not willing to put on the head-phones 
and concentrate on weak CW signals for hours, to the exclusion of everything 
else. They don't live like that and they will not enjoy a hobby like that. 
It is not my place to judge whether this is good or bad. It is what it is. 
But to attract this new "multi-activity generation" to HAM radio (an entire 
generation, not just the odd kid), the hobby must offer a mode that is 
compatible with how they live. FT-8 is perfect for that: it can be operated 
remotely from a smart-phone via an app, while riding a bus or train and 
doing other things... And, yes, it can be automated.
There will be nothing wrong with a young HAM working 100 countries in a 
month while not even at his station. Good for him! Just don't mix his 
achievement with mine. (Is RTTY really a digital mode? It seems to be very 
analog these days.)

73,
George,
AA7JV





On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 17:05:23 -0500
 Cecil  wrote:



Sent from my iPad

On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Cecil  wrote:

This is nonsense



That is only possible if someone has modified the software and is cheating the 
system...which I might add could be done with computers and creative software 
writing to any of the digital modes including CW


That is cheating and not grounds for disallowance from total DXCC participation 
for all users.

Certainly I can do that for one QSO if I need to run to the bathroom or grab a 
quick cup of coffee etcbut if you believe for a second that the FT8 
software is designed to crank it up, walk away for a couple hours and come back 
later to tally up your take as you describe you are showing your lack of 
knowledge of WSJT’s design.

Am I suggesting that some are not doing that...no...not for a minute.  Would I suggest that all DXers are running no more than the legal limit when chasing a new one or no more than 200 watts on 30 meters, or not using a remote station element to gain an unfair advantage to add a new one...nope. 


But it is happening...

Should we shut down the entire awards system because the possibility exists 
that someone will cheat...I think not.

I for one think you should rethink your article before submission Alan...

Respectfully

Cecil
K5DL

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, 


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


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

Re: Topband: 160

[Lloyd - N9LB]

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!
>> 
>> 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-da
>>> y-1991-image66516208.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> Nick, UY0ZG
>>> http://www.topband.in.ua
>>> 
>>> W0MU Mike Fatchett писал 2019-08-02 21:52:
 Ah so all FT8 users 

Re: Topband: 160

[Mark K3MSB]

>>Can't we get along?

I doubt I'd like to get along the way you want us to get along,  by
suppressing discussion because you don't like it.   You want tolerance
based upon indifference, and that's wrong.

I would posit that most people on this reflector have a passion for 160M or
else they wouldn't be here.   Just because you don't like someone elses
opinion of a topic does not mean it should not be discussed.By virtue
of the fact that this topic comes up periodically points to the fact that
there is deep concern and non-aligned opinions on it and it's smoldering
under the surface..As long as it's discussed in a civil manner,  it's
fair game.

Why don't the people that don't want healthy discourse just delete the
respective emails, or unsubscribe from the group?It's just that easy.

If my opinion offends anyone,  that's too bad.   Nobody has the right not
to be offended.

“Cheating” is a strong word.But to address it, just because someone
cheats on mode A does not mean we ignore cheating on mode B;  it should be
addressed on both.

FT-8 is another disruptive technology that is here to stay,  and one where
our alleged “national organization” has failed to provide guidance on it's
impact on the competitive aspects of Amateur Radio.Like someone else so
aptly put,  you don't have a race between a person on foot and a race car.
That summed up this entire issue eloquently and sufficiently.

Mark K3MSB

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 11:24 AM W0MU Mike Fatchett  wrote:

> 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 got DXCC did it right?  You can't so
> please stop singling out a mode you don't care for.  We get it.  Move
> on.  It is here.  Just like the Reverse beacon, packet cluster, etc.
>
> We are all hams enjoying many aspects of the hobby.  Can't we get along?
>
> W0MU
>
> On 8/2/2019 3:03 AM, Ross Johnson wrote:
> > To Carl , my computer is not cleaver enough to work 60 countries FT8
> > on its own.
> > I have to check grey line, put many hours in on band, check
> > DXpeditions  ETC
> > Don’t forget hardware and radio gear.
> >
> > To Nick and George. K1JT has put out a list identifying call signs
> > they believe  are using automated stations, you cant tell me others
> > have not cheated. There was callsigns mentioned on these pages recently.
> >
> > To problem solver Kevin K3OX ,you  have helped some here by pointing
> > out Mix DXCC is not CW  DXCC or SSB DXCC
> >
> > Well done
> >
> > 73  Ross   ZL3RJ
> > _
> > 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

[Cecil]

And I disagree with your declaration that Gary was incorrect. His position, and 
mine are based on the original intent and design of the software writers...not 
how some are modifying and misusing the software. The awards system is also 
based on the original intent and design of the software.

You manually start a CQ sequence that can run unanswered for 15 minutes...but 
if answered and “answer first” is selected an auto sequence of trading signal 
reports ensues until the QSO is successfully completed or fails at which time 
the process stops until the operator starts the process again. It won’t start 
again on its own unless the operator starts it.

If it functions any differently it’s either been modified or is being 
manipulated by a macro...neither of which was part of the software writers 
intent or design...period!

Do I doubt the software has been modified to function unattended...no not at 
all. I think two examples have been presented.

Is that grounds for exempting FT8 contacts from the awards systems for all 
operators...no.  It’s not the solution. Same could be done with any of the 
digital modes and probably has been.

I really think at this point for many, any excuse to exempt FT8 is a good 
excuse...and if that’s where we are that’s a whole different set of problems...

Cecil
K5DL


Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 2, 2019, at 6:25 PM, Billy Cox  wrote:
> 
> No Mike, the reality is Gary was incorrect and there is no need to
> go negative toward others who disagree as done in recent posts. 
> 
> Read the details Mike, watch the video ... it's AUTOMATED. It's not
> cheating (per say) or is it? That's another interesting thought ...
> 
> No need to wave your hands and create straw argument again on this.
> 
> This is not about just another mode ... this is about changing the
> face of the hobby, and 'gutting' what others may still enjoy.
> 
> So, now that the reality is the mode can and is being automated,
> what is the next step? As to the ARRL ban ... oh, yea that will work.
> 
> (And yes Tree and a few others experimented with this years ago on CW)
> 
> Billy, AA4NU
> 
>> On August 2, 2019 at 6:10 PM W0MU Mike Fatchett  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> So does this mean that everyone uses this cheat?  No.
>> 
>> By the way the ARRL has banned automatic unattended contacts from their 
>> programs at the last board meeting.   This means that the operator must 
>> be instigating the contacts.
>> 
>> Curiously many many many years ago, a fellow by the call of N6TR created 
>> a "robot" that made Sweepstakes contacts.  It was not very clever but it 
>> was done.
>> 
>> The only reason you can walk away with the stock program is that once 
>> the qso starts the remaining sequences are indeed automated. So you can 
>> walk away for about 30 seconds.  I am pretty certain that this could 
>> also be done with RTTY if it hasn't been already.
>> 
>> So how many people are fully automated?  10, 100? 1000?How many 
>> people uses power over their licensing?  10, 100, 1000?  Both get you 
>> booted from ARRL programs.  Why is one ok and the other is not?  Just 
>> curious.
>> 
>> What percent of ARRL participants are doing it right?  Nearly everyone 
>> other than the few outliers.  If we can get a list of these automated 
>> callsigns we could easily create a black list and not work them.
>> 
>> I am appalled that people would attempt to strong arm DX peditions from 
>> using a completely legal mode that nets more contacts.  Amazing sick!
>> 
>> W0MU
>> 
>>> On 8/2/2019 4:55 PM, Billy Cox wrote:
>>> Good Afternoon All,
>>> 
>>> Gary, then explain this please?
>>> 
>>> From http://edtk.de/
>>> 
>>> Start "Run Mode" In Run mode, CQs are called continuously, closed QSOs are 
>>> logged automatically. After logged or timed out QSOs, the Program recalls 
>>> CQ. After some unsuccessful CQ calls, the FT8 helper goes to sleep for 
>>> about 2 minutes before he starts calling CQs again.   - Run mode should 
>>> always be operated with "Hold Tx Freq"
>>> 
>>> Or this?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byJyxYi4I8Q
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Billy, AA4NU
>>> 
>>> 
 On August 2, 2019 at 5:16 PM Gary - K7EK via Topband 
  wrote:
 
 
 FT8 (and FT4) does not work like that. An operator must be present to 
 initiate contacts as well as logging completed contacts, and intervening 
 in case of sequencing problems, which can occur frequently. The FT modes 
 were intentionally written by K1JT to prevent fully automatic unattended 
 operation. PLEASE,   know of what you speak instead of parroting what 
 ignorant cynics tell you.  They have no life and nothing better to do than 
 bitch and whine and moan about things they haven't taken time to 
 understand. Do not believe everything you are told. You will be made to 
 look as foolish as the cynics as you enable them and propagate their 
 rubbish. I work with FT8 and FT4 daily (CW too! CWOPS 997 and FISTS #3951 
 amongst others) and 

Re: Topband: 160

[Billy Cox]

No Mike, the reality is Gary was incorrect and there is no need to
go negative toward others who disagree as done in recent posts. 

Read the details Mike, watch the video ... it's AUTOMATED. It's not
cheating (per say) or is it? That's another interesting thought ...

No need to wave your hands and create straw argument again on this.

This is not about just another mode ... this is about changing the
face of the hobby, and 'gutting' what others may still enjoy.

So, now that the reality is the mode can and is being automated,
what is the next step? As to the ARRL ban ... oh, yea that will work.

(And yes Tree and a few others experimented with this years ago on CW)

Billy, AA4NU

> On August 2, 2019 at 6:10 PM W0MU Mike Fatchett  wrote:
> 
> 
> So does this mean that everyone uses this cheat?  No.
> 
> By the way the ARRL has banned automatic unattended contacts from their 
> programs at the last board meeting.   This means that the operator must 
> be instigating the contacts.
> 
> Curiously many many many years ago, a fellow by the call of N6TR created 
> a "robot" that made Sweepstakes contacts.  It was not very clever but it 
> was done.
> 
> The only reason you can walk away with the stock program is that once 
> the qso starts the remaining sequences are indeed automated. So you can 
> walk away for about 30 seconds.  I am pretty certain that this could 
> also be done with RTTY if it hasn't been already.
> 
> So how many people are fully automated?  10, 100? 1000?    How many 
> people uses power over their licensing?  10, 100, 1000?  Both get you 
> booted from ARRL programs.  Why is one ok and the other is not?  Just 
> curious.
> 
> What percent of ARRL participants are doing it right?  Nearly everyone 
> other than the few outliers.  If we can get a list of these automated 
> callsigns we could easily create a black list and not work them.
> 
> I am appalled that people would attempt to strong arm DX peditions from 
> using a completely legal mode that nets more contacts.  Amazing sick!
> 
> W0MU
> 
> On 8/2/2019 4:55 PM, Billy Cox wrote:
> > Good Afternoon All,
> >
> > Gary, then explain this please?
> >
> >  From http://edtk.de/
> >
> > Start "Run Mode" In Run mode, CQs are called continuously, closed QSOs are 
> > logged automatically. After logged or timed out QSOs, the Program recalls 
> > CQ. After some unsuccessful CQ calls, the FT8 helper goes to sleep for 
> > about 2 minutes before he starts calling CQs again.   - Run mode should 
> > always be operated with "Hold Tx Freq"
> >
> > Or this?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byJyxYi4I8Q
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Billy, AA4NU
> >
> >
> >> On August 2, 2019 at 5:16 PM Gary - K7EK via Topband 
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> FT8 (and FT4) does not work like that. An operator must be present to 
> >> initiate contacts as well as logging completed contacts, and intervening 
> >> in case of sequencing problems, which can occur frequently. The FT modes 
> >> were intentionally written by K1JT to prevent fully automatic unattended 
> >> operation. PLEASE,   know of what you speak instead of parroting what 
> >> ignorant cynics tell you.  They have no life and nothing better to do than 
> >> bitch and whine and moan about things they haven't taken time to 
> >> understand. Do not believe everything you are told. You will be made to 
> >> look as foolish as the cynics as you enable them and propagate their 
> >> rubbish. I work with FT8 and FT4 daily (CW too! CWOPS 997 and FISTS #3951 
> >> amongst others) and am a WSJTX and JTDX software tester. I know the JT 
> >> packages quite intimately and what's being propagated just ain't so (urban 
> >> legend?). Get a life!
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Gary, K7EK
> >>
> >> ⁣Sent from BlueMail ​
> >>
> >> On Aug 2, 2019, 14:46, at 14:46, 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 

Re: Topband: 160

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

So does this mean that everyone uses this cheat?  No.

By the way the ARRL has banned automatic unattended contacts from their 
programs at the last board meeting.   This means that the operator must 
be instigating the contacts.


Curiously many many many years ago, a fellow by the call of N6TR created 
a "robot" that made Sweepstakes contacts.  It was not very clever but it 
was done.


The only reason you can walk away with the stock program is that once 
the qso starts the remaining sequences are indeed automated. So you can 
walk away for about 30 seconds.  I am pretty certain that this could 
also be done with RTTY if it hasn't been already.


So how many people are fully automated?  10, 100? 1000?    How many 
people uses power over their licensing?  10, 100, 1000?  Both get you 
booted from ARRL programs.  Why is one ok and the other is not?  Just 
curious.


What percent of ARRL participants are doing it right?  Nearly everyone 
other than the few outliers.  If we can get a list of these automated 
callsigns we could easily create a black list and not work them.


I am appalled that people would attempt to strong arm DX peditions from 
using a completely legal mode that nets more contacts.  Amazing sick!


W0MU

On 8/2/2019 4:55 PM, Billy Cox wrote:

Good Afternoon All,

Gary, then explain this please?

 From http://edtk.de/

Start "Run Mode" In Run mode, CQs are called continuously, closed QSOs are logged 
automatically. After logged or timed out QSOs, the Program recalls CQ. After some unsuccessful CQ 
calls, the FT8 helper goes to sleep for about 2 minutes before he starts calling CQs again.   - Run 
mode should always be operated with "Hold Tx Freq"

Or this?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byJyxYi4I8Q

Thanks,

Billy, AA4NU



On August 2, 2019 at 5:16 PM Gary - K7EK via Topband  
wrote:


FT8 (and FT4) does not work like that. An operator must be present to initiate 
contacts as well as logging completed contacts, and intervening in case of 
sequencing problems, which can occur frequently. The FT modes were 
intentionally written by K1JT to prevent fully automatic unattended operation. 
PLEASE,   know of what you speak instead of parroting what ignorant cynics tell 
you.  They have no life and nothing better to do than bitch and whine and moan 
about things they haven't taken time to understand. Do not believe everything 
you are told. You will be made to look as foolish as the cynics as you enable 
them and propagate their rubbish. I work with FT8 and FT4 daily (CW too! CWOPS 
997 and FISTS #3951 amongst others) and am a WSJTX and JTDX software tester. I 
know the JT packages quite intimately and what's being propagated just ain't so 
(urban legend?). Get a life!

Best regards,

Gary, K7EK

⁣Sent from BlueMail ​

On Aug 2, 2019, 14:46, at 14:46, 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 

Re: Topband: 160

[Wes]

Or this one man expedition:

E6ET will be active in FT8 mode focus the 20m during the day and 40/60m during 
the night.


A 40m or 60m station will be active all night, *from 7:00 UTC (20:00 local) to 
17:00 UTC (6:00 local)*, in FT8.


Occasionally, during the day, the same station will be activated in 20m FT8

*E6ET will be able to manage up to 5 signals simultaneously* without the need 
for the correspondents to set any type of fox & hunt option but simply by 
calling E6ET as in a normal QSO.


*You do not have to set any DXpedition mode option, do not worry if you will see 
E6ET working on you and other stations simultaneously, send RRR73 and the QSO 
will be done !!*





On 8/2/2019 3:55 PM, Billy Cox wrote:

Good Afternoon All,

Gary, then explain this please?

 From http://edtk.de/

Start "Run Mode" In Run mode, CQs are called continuously, closed QSOs are logged 
automatically. After logged or timed out QSOs, the Program recalls CQ. After some unsuccessful CQ 
calls, the FT8 helper goes to sleep for about 2 minutes before he starts calling CQs again.   - Run 
mode should always be operated with "Hold Tx Freq"

Or this?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byJyxYi4I8Q

Thanks,

Billy, AA4NU



On August 2, 2019 at 5:16 PM Gary - K7EK via Topband  
wrote:


FT8 (and FT4) does not work like that. An operator must be present to initiate 
contacts as well as logging completed contacts, and intervening in case of 
sequencing problems, which can occur frequently. The FT modes were 
intentionally written by K1JT to prevent fully automatic unattended operation. 
PLEASE,   know of what you speak instead of parroting what ignorant cynics tell 
you.  They have no life and nothing better to do than bitch and whine and moan 
about things they haven't taken time to understand. Do not believe everything 
you are told. You will be made to look as foolish as the cynics as you enable 
them and propagate their rubbish. I work with FT8 and FT4 daily (CW too! CWOPS 
997 and FISTS #3951 amongst others) and am a WSJTX and JTDX software tester. I 
know the JT packages quite intimately and what's being propagated just ain't so 
(urban legend?). Get a life!

Best regards,

Gary, K7EK



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

Re: Topband: 160

[Dale Putnam]

Thank you Gary.  I too have been using the new digi modes a bit and am a bit 
confused by the yuge outpouring of misinformation. Thank you for confirming 
what I have taken the time to learn.
 Now, at the same time as being concerned about all the negative sshhhttuufff 
flying about, it concerns me a whole lot more on a more intense level that 
hamdom in all its glory is NO longer at the forefront of technical exploration 
and even further seems to be losing the fight for membership with the younger 
folks. I wonder, I simply wonder how concerning is it to anyone else that on 
one hand all the discussion is about a new mode meanwhile, on the other hand 
lack of use of spectrum WILL result with LOSS of use of that spectrum. Are YOU  
sing highly professional and proficient technically ?  Do you exude your 
excitement with ham radio in you daily conversations?  If not why not?
72,
Dale - WC7S in Wy

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Topband  on behalf of Gary - K7EK via 
Topband 
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 4:16:58 PM
To: Cecil 
Cc: rich_k...@gphilltop.com ; Harald Rester 
; Alan Swinger ; 
topband@contesting.com 
Subject: Re: Topband: 160

FT8 (and FT4) does not work like that. An operator must be present to initiate 
contacts as well as logging completed contacts, and intervening in case of 
sequencing problems, which can occur frequently. The FT modes were 
intentionally written by K1JT to prevent fully automatic unattended operation. 
PLEASE,   know of what you speak instead of parroting what ignorant cynics tell 
you.  They have no life and nothing better to do than bitch and whine and moan 
about things they haven't taken time to understand. Do not believe everything 
you are told. You will be made to look as foolish as the cynics as you enable 
them and propagate their rubbish. I work with FT8 and FT4 daily (CW too! CWOPS 
997 and FISTS #3951 amongst others) and am a WSJTX and JTDX software tester. I 
know the JT packages quite intimately and what's being propagated just ain't so 
(urban legend?). Get a life!

Best regards,

Gary, K7EK

⁣Sent from BlueMail ​

On Aug 2, 2019, 14:46, at 14:46, 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 

Re: Topband: 160

[Billy Cox]

Good Afternoon All,

Gary, then explain this please? 

From http://edtk.de/

Start "Run Mode" In Run mode, CQs are called continuously, closed QSOs are 
logged automatically. After logged or timed out QSOs, the Program recalls CQ. 
After some unsuccessful CQ calls, the FT8 helper goes to sleep for about 2 
minutes before he starts calling CQs again.   - Run mode should always be 
operated with "Hold Tx Freq"

Or this?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byJyxYi4I8Q

Thanks,

Billy, AA4NU


> On August 2, 2019 at 5:16 PM Gary - K7EK via Topband  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> FT8 (and FT4) does not work like that. An operator must be present to 
> initiate contacts as well as logging completed contacts, and intervening in 
> case of sequencing problems, which can occur frequently. The FT modes were 
> intentionally written by K1JT to prevent fully automatic unattended 
> operation. PLEASE,   know of what you speak instead of parroting what 
> ignorant cynics tell you.  They have no life and nothing better to do than 
> bitch and whine and moan about things they haven't taken time to understand. 
> Do not believe everything you are told. You will be made to look as foolish 
> as the cynics as you enable them and propagate their rubbish. I work with FT8 
> and FT4 daily (CW too! CWOPS 997 and FISTS #3951 amongst others) and am a 
> WSJTX and JTDX software tester. I know the JT packages quite intimately and 
> what's being propagated just ain't so (urban legend?). Get a life!
> 
> Best regards, 
> 
> Gary, K7EK
> 
> ⁣Sent from BlueMail ​
> 
> On Aug 2, 2019, 14:46, at 14:46, 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 

Topband: 160

[fmoeves]

I really wish I could find the robot that runs my FT-8 station.I would
have him put up a Beverage or two and work on the tower.I tired of
doing all the work around here.
ThanksFred KB4QZH

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

Re: Topband: 160

[Gary - K7EK via Topband]

FT8 (and FT4) does not work like that. An operator must be present to initiate 
contacts as well as logging completed contacts, and intervening in case of 
sequencing problems, which can occur frequently. The FT modes were 
intentionally written by K1JT to prevent fully automatic unattended operation. 
PLEASE,   know of what you speak instead of parroting what ignorant cynics tell 
you.  They have no life and nothing better to do than bitch and whine and moan 
about things they haven't taken time to understand. Do not believe everything 
you are told. You will be made to look as foolish as the cynics as you enable 
them and propagate their rubbish. I work with FT8 and FT4 daily (CW too! CWOPS 
997 and FISTS #3951 amongst others) and am a WSJTX and JTDX software tester. I 
know the JT packages quite intimately and what's being propagated just ain't so 
(urban legend?). Get a life!

Best regards, 

Gary, K7EK

⁣Sent from BlueMail ​

On Aug 2, 2019, 14:46, at 14:46, 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 

Re: Topband: 160

[Wes]

Sounds good to me.

I would add that I have made some FT-8 QSOs, mostly on the day it arrived and 
before I grasped the implications, but also some more recently.  That said, 
although I am uploading to LoTW for my QSO partners' use, I am not using them 
for credit for any awards. This suits my personal ethical position.  I have a 
DXCC certificate that says, "RTTY" on it and RTTY contacts are the only ones I 
will submit for credits.  Once again, this is the way I choose to do it; others 
are free to march to their drummer, just as they are free to run excess power, 
use remote stations in a different time zone, have their buddies work new ones 
for them to keep their status on the "Honor Roll" and so forth.  I don't care.


As I have been known to contribute to individual DXpeditions as well as 
supporting NCDXF and INDEXA, I've obviously made it onto a "list" and from time 
to time receive requests for donations.  A couple of these leap to mind.  One, 
from an EU ham headed to a Pacific isle, bragged about how, even as a single op, 
he was going to have a station on 24/7 making QSOs.  I don't think it necessary, 
but I will say, "No Deal" and no QSOs with me.  A more recent one is also going 
to a rare Pacific isle and is looking for money and operators skilled in FT-8 
F/H.  I'm not sure exactly what skill is required but that's the way it goes. If 
they run a good operation and can fill in some slots on CW, SSB or RTTY for me, 
I'll send a few bucks, but it will be after the fact.


In terms of DXpeditions, it should be remembered they need to work us.  Their 
reason for going is to make Qs and a lot of them.  If no one works them on FT-8, 
they'll try CW or some other mode.


My $0.02

Wes  N7WS


On 8/2/2019 2:22 PM, Alan Swinger wrote:

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



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

Re: Topband: 160

[Cecil]

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Cecil  wrote:
> 
> This is nonsense


> 
> That is only possible if someone has modified the software and is cheating 
> the system...which I might add could be done with computers and creative 
> software writing to any of the digital modes including CW

That is cheating and not grounds for disallowance from total DXCC participation 
for all users.

Certainly I can do that for one QSO if I need to run to the bathroom or grab a 
quick cup of coffee etcbut if you believe for a second that the FT8 
software is designed to crank it up, walk away for a couple hours and come back 
later to tally up your take as you describe you are showing your lack of 
knowledge of WSJT’s design.

Am I suggesting that some are not doing that...no...not for a minute.  Would I 
suggest that all DXers are running no more than the legal limit when chasing a 
new one or no more than 200 watts on 30 meters, or not using a remote station 
element to gain an unfair advantage to add a new one...nope. 

But it is happening...

Should we shut down the entire awards system because the possibility exists 
that someone will cheat...I think not.

I for one think you should rethink your article before submission Alan...

Respectfully

Cecil
K5DL

> 
>>> 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, 

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

Re: Topband: 160

[Robert Brennan via Topband]

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 

Re: Topband: 160

[Cecil]

This was a mis fire...

Proper response is to follow...

Cecil
K5DL

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Cecil  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160

[Cecil]

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 got DXCC did it right? You
>>> can't so please stop singling out a mode you don't care for.  We 
>>> get
>>> it.  Move on.  It is here.  Just like the Reverse beacon, packet
>>> cluster, etc.
>>> 
>>> We are all hams enjoying many 

Re: Topband: 160

[Alan Swinger]

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!
>> 
>> 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 got DXCC did it right? You
>> can't so please stop singling out a mode you don't care 

Re: Topband: 160

[rich_k7zv]

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 got DXCC did it right? You
can't so please stop singling out a mode you don't care for.  We 
get

it.  Move on.  It is here.  Just like the Reverse beacon, packet
cluster, etc.

We are all hams enjoying many aspects of the hobby.  Can't we get
along?

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

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

Re: Topband: 160

[Harald Rester]

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 got DXCC did it right? You
can't so please stop singling out a mode you don't care for.  We get
it.  Move on.  It is here.  Just like the Reverse beacon, packet
cluster, etc.

We are all hams enjoying many aspects of the hobby.  Can't we get
along?

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: 160

[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 got DXCC did it right? You
can't so please stop singling out a mode you don't care for.  We get
it.  Move on.  It is here.  Just like the Reverse beacon, packet
cluster, etc.

We are all hams enjoying many aspects of the hobby.  Can't we get 
along?


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: 160

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

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 got DXCC did it right? You
can't so please stop singling out a mode you don't care for.  We get
it.  Move on.  It is here.  Just like the Reverse beacon, packet
cluster, etc.

We are all hams enjoying many aspects of the hobby.  Can't we get along?

W0MU

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


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

Re: Topband: 160

[uy0zg]

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 got DXCC did it right?  You
can't so please stop singling out a mode you don't care for.  We get
it.  Move on.  It is here.  Just like the Reverse beacon, packet
cluster, etc.

We are all hams enjoying many aspects of the hobby.  Can't we get 
along?


W0MU

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

Re: Topband: 160

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

Shutting down?

I just don't think continual bashing of people enjoying the hobby is 
good for the hobby.  Cheaters will be dealt with.


What could this "discussion" on this list possible solve?

Sorry you don't like FT-X.  Many don't like CW and SSB but they are not 
on here bashing other hams enjoying the hobby.  Lets raise the bar a 
bit.  I thought this was the gentleman's band.  If Topband is now lets 
continue to criticize and accuse and bash, then by all means continue on.




On 8/2/2019 12:00 PM, Doug Renwick wrote:

So you would like to shut down all discussion because the 'science is
settled'. Good factual discussion is important, but you see it as not
getting along. I disagree.

Doug

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

-Original Message-

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 got DXCC did it right?  You can't so
please stop singling out a mode you don't care for.  We get it.  Move
on.  It is here.  Just like the Reverse beacon, packet cluster, etc.

We are all hams enjoying many aspects of the hobby.  Can't we get along?

W0MU

On 8/2/2019 3:03 AM, Ross Johnson wrote:

To Carl , my computer is not cleaver enough to work 60 countries FT8
on its own.
I have to check grey line, put many hours in on band, check
DXpeditions  ETC
Don’t forget hardware and radio gear.

To Nick and George. K1JT has put out a list identifying call signs
they believe  are using automated stations, you cant tell me others
have not cheated. There was callsigns mentioned on these pages recently.

To problem solver Kevin K3OX ,you  have helped some here by pointing
out Mix DXCC is not CW  DXCC or SSB DXCC

Well done

73  Ross   ZL3RJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
Reflector



---
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

Re: Topband: 160

[Doug Renwick]

So you would like to shut down all discussion because the 'science is
settled'. Good factual discussion is important, but you see it as not
getting along. I disagree.

Doug

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein 

-Original Message-

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 got DXCC did it right?  You can't so 
please stop singling out a mode you don't care for.  We get it.  Move 
on.  It is here.  Just like the Reverse beacon, packet cluster, etc.

We are all hams enjoying many aspects of the hobby.  Can't we get along?

W0MU

On 8/2/2019 3:03 AM, Ross Johnson wrote:
> To Carl , my computer is not cleaver enough to work 60 countries FT8 
> on its own.
> I have to check grey line, put many hours in on band, check 
> DXpeditions  ETC
> Don’t forget hardware and radio gear.
>
> To Nick and George. K1JT has put out a list identifying call signs 
> they believe  are using automated stations, you cant tell me others 
> have not cheated. There was callsigns mentioned on these pages recently.
>
> To problem solver Kevin K3OX ,you  have helped some here by pointing 
> out Mix DXCC is not CW  DXCC or SSB DXCC
>
> Well done
>
> 73  Ross   ZL3RJ
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
> Reflector



---
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]

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 got DXCC did it right?  You can't so 
please stop singling out a mode you don't care for.  We get it.  Move 
on.  It is here.  Just like the Reverse beacon, packet cluster, etc.


We are all hams enjoying many aspects of the hobby.  Can't we get along?

W0MU

On 8/2/2019 3:03 AM, Ross Johnson wrote:
To Carl , my computer is not cleaver enough to work 60 countries FT8 
on its own.
I have to check grey line, put many hours in on band, check 
DXpeditions  ETC

Don’t forget hardware and radio gear.

To Nick and George. K1JT has put out a list identifying call signs 
they believe  are using automated stations, you cant tell me others 
have not cheated. There was callsigns mentioned on these pages recently.


To problem solver Kevin K3OX ,you  have helped some here by pointing 
out Mix DXCC is not CW  DXCC or SSB DXCC


Well done

73  Ross   ZL3RJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector


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

Re: Topband: 160

[Joe]

Anywhere this auto list is viewable?

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 8/2/2019 4:03 AM, Ross Johnson wrote:
To Carl , my computer is not cleaver enough to work 60 countries FT8 
on its own.
I have to check grey line, put many hours in on band, check 
DXpeditions  ETC

Don’t forget hardware and radio gear.

To Nick and George. K1JT has put out a list identifying call signs 
they believe  are using automated stations, you cant tell me others 
have not cheated. There was callsigns mentioned on these pages recently.


To problem solver Kevin K3OX ,you  have helped some here by pointing 
out Mix DXCC is not CW  DXCC or SSB DXCC


Well done

73  Ross   ZL3RJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector


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