subject:"Topband\: https\:\/\/clublog.org\/logsearch\/CB0ZA"


On 2/19/2024 4:02 PM, Jim Brown wrote:

Since what modes like FT8, JT65, and FST4 do is compensate for the
drastically added electronic noise. Using those modes today is roughly
comparable to working CW 20+ years ago. I would support the
endorsement you suggest ONLY to those QSOs made on CW after about 2010.


I started writing out a reply that turned into a diatribe, so I erased
it. All I'll say here is I don't see any distinction in time necessary,
even though it would benefit me since I no longer have any old paper
QSLs, having lost them all in a storage space theft back in 2001.

Steve, K0XP



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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

2024-02-19 Thread Michael Tope

Yeah, I suppose you could do that for "N-band DXCC" as well. It already 
exists for DXCC Honor Roll tallies.


73, Mike W4EF.

On 2/19/2024 3:32 PM, Steve Harrison wrote:

On 2/19/2024 3:25 PM, Michael Tope wrote:

Since reclassifying 160 DXCC totals to exclude FT8 would be terribly
unfair to those who submitted FT8 confirmations toward DXCC in good
faith, it seems like a possible solution would be to add provisions
for a CW endorsement to the 160 meter DXCC award. If it were workable
administratively, it would provide a way for those who made the
majority of their DXCC contacts on CW to compare themselves with
others who have done similarly. It would also provide a way for those
who enjoy FT8 to compare their progress with others in the "unlimited"
category. Who knows, it might even encourage a resurgence of CW
activity, since that endorsement would carry a certain cache.


Make such a CW endorsement for ALL bands.

Steve, K0XP



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



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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

2024-02-19 Thread n4is

Just my 2 cents

SSB, CW , Digital and Mixed modes is the standard for DXCC in all band, less
160m and VHF, I quite understand it for VHF. But 160m is considered an
impossible band for most of ARRL God ! or second class...

73
N4IS
JC

-Original Message-
From: Topband  On Behalf Of
Jim Brown
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 7:02 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

On 2/19/2024 3:25 PM, Michael Tope wrote:
> Since reclassifying 160 DXCC totals to exclude FT8 would be terribly 
> unfair to those who submitted FT8 confirmations toward DXCC in good 
> faith, it seems like a possible solution would be to add provisions 
> for a CW endorsement to the 160 meter DXCC award. If it were workable 
> administratively, it would provide a way for those who made the 
> majority of their DXCC contacts on CW to compare themselves with 
> others who have done similarly. It would also provide a way for those 
> who enjoy FT8 to compare their progress with others in the "unlimited" 
> category. Who knows, it might even encourage a resurgence of CW 
> activity, since that endorsement would carry a certain cache.

Hi Mike,

Since what modes like FT8, JT65, and FST4 do is compensate for the
drastically added electronic noise. Using those modes today is roughly
comparable to working CW 20+ years ago. I would support the endorsement you
suggest ONLY to those QSOs made on CW after about 2010.

73, Jim K9YC



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


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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA


On 2/19/2024 3:25 PM, Michael Tope wrote:
Since reclassifying 160 DXCC totals to exclude FT8 would be terribly 
unfair to those who submitted FT8 confirmations toward DXCC in good 
faith, it seems like a possible solution would be to add provisions for 
a CW endorsement to the 160 meter DXCC award. If it were workable 
administratively, it would provide a way for those who made the majority 
of their DXCC contacts on CW to compare themselves with others who have 
done similarly. It would also provide a way for those who enjoy FT8 to 
compare their progress with others in the "unlimited" category. Who 
knows, it might even encourage a resurgence of CW activity, since that 
endorsement would carry a certain cache.


Hi Mike,

Since what modes like FT8, JT65, and FST4 do is compensate for the 
drastically added electronic noise. Using those modes today is roughly 
comparable to working CW 20+ years ago. I would support the endorsement 
you suggest ONLY to those QSOs made on CW after about 2010.


73, Jim K9YC



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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA


On 2/19/2024 3:25 PM, Michael Tope wrote:

Since reclassifying 160 DXCC totals to exclude FT8 would be terribly
unfair to those who submitted FT8 confirmations toward DXCC in good
faith, it seems like a possible solution would be to add provisions
for a CW endorsement to the 160 meter DXCC award. If it were workable
administratively, it would provide a way for those who made the
majority of their DXCC contacts on CW to compare themselves with
others who have done similarly. It would also provide a way for those
who enjoy FT8 to compare their progress with others in the "unlimited"
category. Who knows, it might even encourage a resurgence of CW
activity, since that endorsement would carry a certain cache.


Make such a CW endorsement for ALL bands.

Steve, K0XP



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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

2024-02-19 Thread Michael Tope

Since reclassifying 160 DXCC totals to exclude FT8 would be terribly
unfair to those who submitted FT8 confirmations toward DXCC in good
faith, it seems like a possible solution would be to add provisions for
a CW endorsement to the 160 meter DXCC award. If it were workable
administratively, it would provide a way for those who made the majority
of their DXCC contacts on CW to compare themselves with others who have
done similarly. It would also provide a way for those who enjoy FT8 to
compare their progress with others in the "unlimited" category. Who
knows, it might even encourage a resurgence of CW activity, since that
endorsement would carry a certain cache.

73, Mike W4EF

On 2/19/2024 1:51 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:

It is unreasonable to assume all FT8 QSOs are with robots, however, many are. Technically, some
"I" (my computer) makes are made with me not in attendance. When I can disable transmit
and walk out to the kitchen to get another beer and come back to see that my software has tuned my
radio to the Fox frequency and called him to complete the QSO, I think that's a "robot."
And that is exactly why I do not submit WSJT contacts for DXCC credit. If others want
to, that's between them and their ethics. Why do I make the contacts then? you may ask.
Because one of my DX clubs has an internal competition where certain expeditions are
designated as targets for "band slot Bingo", where we compete for the greatest
number of slots worked. You can't win if you don't play.
As to efficiency, I think FT8 wastes a lot of time. Other modes, including RTTY, are
simply faster, although they require more operator skill on both ends. F/H is
particularly bad in this regard. You can call and call and might actually be in the
queue but not know it until you go to the kitchen for that beer and come back and see
that "you" made the contact.
Another particularly distasteful thing about FT8 is that the DX can set filters
to exclude certain callers based on signal strength, distance, country, etc.
and the callers never know it. I know there will be vehement denial of this
but I know it happens.
WSJT will never replace RTTY.

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 12:56:59 PM MST, Jim Brown
wrote:

On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:

Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing.

It is unreasonable to assume that all FT8 QSOs are with robots. I know
some of the very experienced CW ops who run FT8 on expeditions. WSJT-X
software makes the mode quite time-efficient for expeditions. It's a
replacement for RTTY, not CW.
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

 Yes, I know that but some might choose to operate that way, hence "robot."
RTFM and 73 in the same message.  A bit of irony.

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 03:37:56 PM MST, Joe Subich, W4TV 
 wrote:  
 
 


On 2/19/2024 4:51 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:

> F/H is particularly bad in this regard.  You can call and call and 
> might actually be in the queue but not know it until you go to the 
> kitchen for that beer and come back and see that "you" made the
> contact.
If you do not want your computer responding to delayed queue entries
while you are in the kitchen getting a beer, simply clear the DX Call
box!  Just like you told the computer to call the station, you can
tell it not to reply when you're not there.

RTFM!

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 2/19/2024 4:51 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:
>  It is unreasonable to assume all FT8 QSOs are with robots, however, many 
>are.  Technically, some "I" (my computer) makes are made with me not in 
>attendance.  When I can disable transmit and walk out to the kitchen to get 
>another beer and come back to see that my software has tuned my radio to the 
>Fox frequency and called him to complete the QSO, I think that's a "robot."
> And that is exactly why I do not submit WSJT contacts for DXCC credit.  If 
> others want to, that's between them and their ethics.  Why do I make the 
> contacts then? you may ask. Because one of my DX clubs has an internal 
> competition where certain expeditions are designated as targets for "band 
> slot Bingo", where we compete for the greatest number of slots worked.  You 
> can't win if you don't play.
> As to efficiency, I think FT8 wastes a lot of time.  Other modes, including 
> RTTY, are simply faster, although they require more operator skill on both 
> ends.  F/H is particularly bad in this regard.  You can call and call and 
> might actually be in the queue but not know it until you go to the kitchen 
> for that beer and come back and see that "you" made the contact.
> Another particularly distasteful thing about FT8 is that the DX can set 
> filters to exclude certain callers based on signal strength, distance, 
> country, etc. and the callers never know it.  I know there will be vehement 
> denial of this but I know it happens.
> WSJT will never replace RTTY.
> 
>      On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 12:56:59 PM MST, Jim Brown 
> wrote:
>  



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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA


On 2/19/2024 1:51 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:

Another particularly distasteful thing about FT8 is that the DX can set filters 
to exclude certain callers based on signal strength, distance, country, etc. 
and the callers never know it.  I know there will be vehement denial of this 
but I know it happens.


Still happens on CW, too. Last night, I wasted almost three hours
calling and calling 8R7X on 80m, the last two hours after he'd gotten as
strong as S7 to S9 on my meter. If he was only running 1000W, and I,
too, was running 1000W, you'd think he should have at least heard
SOMETHING. If he was only running 500 watts (as I think he was) and I'm
running a KW, he almost certainly would have heard me calling. The
pileup of W/K/VEs started out very large but gradually died down as they
peeled off one by one to get some sleep before a Monday morning. This op
was enamelled with working Europeans before their sunrise (especially
UAs), and would only respond to a W/K/VE once in about 10 QSOs, and then
it seemed usually to "pals" in the PVRC (I'm also a former PVRCer). Once
the grayline crossed England, he quit suddenly, went away, and hey el
presto... no more opportunity to work 8R7X on 80m.

Yes, barring evidence to the contrary, I'm going to blatantly accuse
last night's 8R7X 80m operator of biased operating; it could not have
been more obvious.

Steve, K0XP


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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

 

So that the operators can exclude them.

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 03:21:05 PM MST, WW3S  
wrote:  
 
 The filters dont “exclude” callers, they do however sort them….either by 
signal strength, mileage ( based on grid square) , maybe continent…..

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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

2024-02-19 Thread Joe Subich, W4TV

On 2/19/2024 4:51 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:

F/H is particularly bad in this regard. You can call and call and
might actually be in the queue but not know it until you go to the
kitchen for that beer and come back and see that "you" made the

contact.

If you do not want your computer responding to delayed queue entries
while you are in the kitchen getting a beer, simply clear the DX Call
box! Just like you told the computer to call the station, you can
tell it not to reply when you're not there.

RTFM!

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 2/19/2024 4:51 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 12:56:59 PM MST, Jim Brown
wrote:

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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

2024-02-19 Thread WW3S

The filters dont “exclude” callers, they do however sort them….either by signal 
strength, mileage ( based on grid square) , maybe continent…..
Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 19, 2024, at 5:11 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband  
> wrote:
> 
>  It is unreasonable to assume all FT8 QSOs are with robots, however, many 
> are.  Technically, some "I" (my computer) makes are made with me not in 
> attendance.  When I can disable transmit and walk out to the kitchen to get 
> another beer and come back to see that my software has tuned my radio to the 
> Fox frequency and called him to complete the QSO, I think that's a "robot."
> And that is exactly why I do not submit WSJT contacts for DXCC credit.  If 
> others want to, that's between them and their ethics.  Why do I make the 
> contacts then? you may ask. Because one of my DX clubs has an internal 
> competition where certain expeditions are designated as targets for "band 
> slot Bingo", where we compete for the greatest number of slots worked.  You 
> can't win if you don't play.
> As to efficiency, I think FT8 wastes a lot of time.  Other modes, including 
> RTTY, are simply faster, although they require more operator skill on both 
> ends.  F/H is particularly bad in this regard.  You can call and call and 
> might actually be in the queue but not know it until you go to the kitchen 
> for that beer and come back and see that "you" made the contact.
> Another particularly distasteful thing about FT8 is that the DX can set 
> filters to exclude certain callers based on signal strength, distance, 
> country, etc. and the callers never know it.  I know there will be vehement 
> denial of this but I know it happens.
> WSJT will never replace RTTY.
> 
>On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 12:56:59 PM MST, Jim Brown 
>  wrote:  
> 
>> On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
>> Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing.
> 
> It is unreasonable to assume that all FT8 QSOs are with robots. I know
> some of the very experienced CW ops who run FT8 on expeditions. WSJT-X
> software makes the mode quite time-efficient for expeditions. It's a
> replacement for RTTY, not CW.  
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector


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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

 It is unreasonable to assume all FT8 QSOs are with robots, however, many are.  
Technically, some "I" (my computer) makes are made with me not in attendance.  
When I can disable transmit and walk out to the kitchen to get another beer and 
come back to see that my software has tuned my radio to the Fox frequency and 
called him to complete the QSO, I think that's a "robot."
And that is exactly why I do not submit WSJT contacts for DXCC credit.  If 
others want to, that's between them and their ethics.  Why do I make the 
contacts then? you may ask. Because one of my DX clubs has an internal 
competition where certain expeditions are designated as targets for "band slot 
Bingo", where we compete for the greatest number of slots worked.  You can't 
win if you don't play.
As to efficiency, I think FT8 wastes a lot of time.  Other modes, including 
RTTY, are simply faster, although they require more operator skill on both 
ends.  F/H is particularly bad in this regard.  You can call and call and might 
actually be in the queue but not know it until you go to the kitchen for that 
beer and come back and see that "you" made the contact.
Another particularly distasteful thing about FT8 is that the DX can set filters 
to exclude certain callers based on signal strength, distance, country, etc. 
and the callers never know it.  I know there will be vehement denial of this 
but I know it happens.
WSJT will never replace RTTY.

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 12:56:59 PM MST, Jim Brown 
 wrote:  
 
 On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
> Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing.

It is unreasonable to assume that all FT8 QSOs are with robots. I know 
some of the very experienced CW ops who run FT8 on expeditions. WSJT-X 
software makes the mode quite time-efficient for expeditions. It's a 
replacement for RTTY, not CW.  
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA


On 2/19/2024 1:07 PM, ok1tn wrote:

To top it all off, the expedition will not even be present on the island.


Another false belief. The difference is that only a few guys go to the 
island, set up the station(s), and go back to their boat anchored 
off-share. They return to the island periodically to refuel generators, 
and fix things that break. And AA7JV has even developed a system for 
remote operators on different continents to split operator shifts. K6MM, 
a fine CW op who has been on a fair number of expeditions, gave a talk 
last week to the NorCal DX Club about having operated from one of 
George's setups in the South Pacific this season.


I've heard many talks by the guys who have been on or even led major DX 
trips. The only differences are COST, HARDSHIP, and getting permission 
to even BE on the island from the governments that control it. Many of 
these rare island countries are wildlife sanctuaries.  It is FAR easier 
to get that permission for three people who spend little time on the 
island than for 20 people who live there for two weeks!


Recent expeditions have cost half a million dollars, and of those there 
have been serious failures; Radio In a Box would almost certainly have 
been far more successful for at least one of them.


There is a saying here in the US about the understanding gained by 
walking a mile in the other man's shoes. It may have come from our 
European ancestors.


73, Jim K9YC

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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

2024-02-19 Thread Mike Waters

Not again! (Sigh)

Mike
W0BTU
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

Of course, the development of technological progress is necessary and 
interesting. But there is one thing. - you cannot use progress to 
destroy what thousands of radio amateurs spent their lives on. Do you 
understand what I'm talking about ?


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

Jim Brown писал(а) 2024-02-19 23:11:
Also totally false assumptions about digital modes, including FT8. The 
modes invented by Nobel laureate K1JT, and expanded on by the team 
responsible for WSJT-X software, are widely used on VHF and UHF for 
moonbounce with the same sort of arrays used in the past with CW, 
providing about 10 dB signal to noise advantage. Likewise for meteor 
scatter. On 6M, I use FT8 extensively for weak signal ionospheric 
propagation, and MSK144 for meteor scatter.


During the most recent solar minimum, I used FT8 extensively for a 
couple of seasons to extend my country count by about 1,000 miles on 
topband. Thanks to the drastic intrusion of electronically generated 
noise over the last decade, I've heard only about eight EU stations on 
CW in the past 7-8 seasons, and only two have heard me. When I first 
moved to Northern California in 2006, I could work EU a few nights a 
year, and with the same TX and RX antennas that I still have.


What makes my path to EU so difficult is that it's both long and 
through so much of the polar region. It is FAR easier for me to work AF 
on topband (when there are stations there to work), even much longer 
distances, like ZS.


73, Jim K9YC

On 2/19/2024 12:42 PM, uy0zg via Topband wrote:
So this is exactly where I started the topic - soon heaven will come 
on earth :-

In the future, there may be no need to build antennas at all...



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


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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

Also totally false assumptions about digital modes, including FT8. The 
modes invented by Nobel laureate K1JT, and expanded on by the team 
responsible for WSJT-X software, are widely used on VHF and UHF for 
moonbounce with the same sort of arrays used in the past with CW, 
providing about 10 dB signal to noise advantage. Likewise for meteor 
scatter. On 6M, I use FT8 extensively for weak signal ionospheric 
propagation, and MSK144 for meteor scatter.


During the most recent solar minimum, I used FT8 extensively for a 
couple of seasons to extend my country count by about 1,000 miles on 
topband. Thanks to the drastic intrusion of electronically generated 
noise over the last decade, I've heard only about eight EU stations on 
CW in the past 7-8 seasons, and only two have heard me. When I first 
moved to Northern California in 2006, I could work EU a few nights a 
year, and with the same TX and RX antennas that I still have.


What makes my path to EU so difficult is that it's both long and through 
so much of the polar region. It is FAR easier for me to work AF on 
topband (when there are stations there to work), even much longer 
distances, like ZS.


73, Jim K9YC

On 2/19/2024 12:42 PM, uy0zg via Topband wrote:
So this is exactly where I started the topic - soon heaven will come on 
earth :-

In the future, there may be no need to build antennas at all...



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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

2024-02-19 Thread ok1tn

I'm not nervous. I'm sorry that today's hams won't experience those feelings
when gaining a new land on TB. I'm 3 countries short of 300.DXCC CW. But I'm
giving up the fight with the no-nonsense attitude towards hoby development. 
To top it all off, the expedition will not even be present on the island. 
What comes more. Ban the telegraph.
-- 
73 Slavek Zeler
www.lc-variable.eu
www.okdxf.eu

-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Jim Brown 
Komu: topband@contesting.com
Datum: 19. 2. 2024 20:53:57
Předmět: Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA
"On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote: 
> Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing. 

It is unreasonable to assume that all FT8 QSOs are with robots. I know 
some of the very experienced CW ops who run FT8 on expeditions. WSJT-X 
software makes the mode quite time-efficient for expeditions. It's a 
replacement for RTTY, not CW. 

It should be observed that no less a great engineer and operator than 
AA7JV is a strong believer in the mode. George is one of the best 
operators and most innovative engineers I know. And he's got great big 
balls! Check out his history. This is a guy who would swim hundred of 
yards to to his boat anchored offshore to upload the log, which was on a 
thumb drive in a baggie in his mouth. And who designed very effective 
topband antennas specifically for the conditions on the islands where he 
planned to set up. And who designed and built diplexers for Topband 
transmitting antennas so that both CW and FT8 stations could be active 
simultaneously every night, so that the "magic" openings that usually 
occur one or two nights out of 3 weeks would not be missed. And who 
invented "Radio In A Box," drastically reducing the cost and physical 
difficulty of expeditions to islands. 

I made several QSOs with the CB0 team this weekend during ARRL DX CW. 
Great ops made it easy to work them. I did not work 160 this weekend -- 
storms have taken out all of my RX antennas. 

73, Jim K9YC 

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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

2024-02-19 Thread Joe Subich, W4TV

On 2/19/2024 3:42 PM, uy0zg via Topband wrote:
>
>
>

So this is exactly where I started the topic - soon heaven will come
on earth :-

No, FT8 has provided a way to compensate for the 20 dB in increased
noise floor over the last 40 years.

I was around in the late 1970's and early 1980s with a simple 1/4 wave
sloper and short Beverage antennas on a couple of suburban acres.  I
know from first hand experience what all the switching power supplies,
plasma displays and sloppy power line maintenance has done to the noise
level on 160 and 80.  Even if I had multiple RX antennas on my current
five acre suburban plot, I could not come close (DXCC #50 and second
not on the east coast) to what I accomplished before we were allowed
high power on 160.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV

On 2/19/2024 3:42 PM, uy0zg via Topband wrote:

"Like it or not, FT8 has been a boon to many DXers with limited antenna

situations and noisy locations."

So this is exactly where I started the topic - soon heaven will come on 
earth :-

In the future, there may be no need to build antennas at all...

So friends, we should be happy and not nervous :-)))

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

Joe Subich, W4TV писал(а) 2024-02-19 22:29:

On 2/19/2024 3:10 PM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:

After, I found few QSOs with me, just checked few known call signs in
their LOG, found also same.

Unlike the official WSJTX software, some third party variations will
log a QSO every time it sends an acknowledgement (RR73) for a report.
If the calling ("hound") station does not hear the acknowledgement
and sends his report again, the third party software is too "dumb"
and treats the repeated report as another QSO.  When this happens
the DXPedition can rack up multiple QSOs - generally one minute apart.

This is a problem of sloppy programming on a noisy band ... not DXers
who are intentionally making multiple QSOs.

Like it or not, FT8 has been a boon to many DXers with limited antenna
situations and noisy locations.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV

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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

2024-02-19 Thread ok1tn

FT8 mode completely changed our great hoby. Unfortunately negative.. FT8 is 
no progress. Just laziness to improve the setup of your station.

-- 
73 Slavek Zeler
www.lc-variable.eu
www.okdxf.eu

-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Joe Subich, W4TV 
Komu: topband@contesting.com
Datum: 19. 2. 2024 21:30:03
Předmět: Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA
"
On 2/19/2024 3:10 PM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:

> After, I found few QSOs with me, just checked few known call signs in
> their LOG, found also same.
Unlike the official WSJTX software, some third party variations will
log a QSO every time it sends an acknowledgement (RR73) for a report.
If the calling ("hound") station does not hear the acknowledgement
and sends his report again, the third party software is too "dumb"
and treats the repeated report as another QSO. When this happens
the DXPedition can rack up multiple QSOs - generally one minute apart.

This is a problem of sloppy programming on a noisy band ... not DXers
who are intentionally making multiple QSOs.

Like it or not, FT8 has been a boon to many DXers with limited antenna
situations and noisy locations.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2/19/2024 3:10 PM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
> I am not sure 100% about robot, but it is very similar to what I wrote.
> After, I found few QSOs with me, just checked few known call signs in 
their
> LOG, found also same.
> Sam LY5W
> 
> 2024-02-19, pr 21:54, Jim Brown  rašė:
> 
>> On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
>>> Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot 
doing.
>>
>> It is unreasonable to assume that all FT8 QSOs are with robots. I know
>> some of the very experienced CW ops who run FT8 on expeditions. WSJT-X
>> software makes the mode quite time-efficient for expeditions. It's a
>> replacement for RTTY, not CW.
>>
>> It should be observed that no less a great engineer and operator than
>> AA7JV is a strong believer in the mode. George is one of the best
>> operators and most innovative engineers I know. And he's got great big
>> balls! Check out his history. This is a guy who would swim hundred of
>> yards to to his boat anchored offshore to upload the log, which was on a
>> thumb drive in a baggie in his mouth. And who designed very effective
>> topband antennas specifically for the conditions on the islands where he
>> planned to set up. And who designed and built diplexers for Topband
>> transmitting antennas so that both CW and FT8 stations could be active
>> simultaneously every night, so that the "magic" openings that usually
>> occur one or two nights out of 3 weeks would not be missed. And who
>> invented "Radio In A Box," drastically reducing the cost and physical
>> difficulty of expeditions to islands.
>>
>> I made several QSOs with the CB0 team this weekend during ARRL DX CW.
>> Great ops made it easy to work them. I did not work 160 this weekend --
>> storms have taken out all of my RX antennas.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>>



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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 10:42 PM  wrote:

>
>
>
> "Like it or not, FT8 has been a boon to many DXers with limited antenna
> > situations and noisy locations."
>
> So this is exactly where I started the topic - soon heaven will come on
> earth :-
> In the future, there may be no need to build antennas at all...
>

Don't talk nonsense. For example TX5S expedition. We in Lithuania had only
2 openings, very short. And nobody did a single QSO on 160m.
Only me and another one LY called them for a 5-7 minutes, when they were
visible on a screens. But very bad what was long list of callers, and
propagation ended.
I AM SURE 100% WHAT WE WERE IN THIS LIST (QUEUE), not many stations have
good RX/TX antenna's in LY on 160m.
https://clublog.org/charts/?c=TX5S#r

>
>
> So friends, we should be happy and not nervous :-)))
>
> So be happy, don't nervous.

Waiting for FW8GC/TX8GC on Top band . I also not like FT8, but ARRL
dudies like, so take it easy and not explain.
Sam LY5W
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA





"Like it or not, FT8 has been a boon to many DXers with limited antenna

situations and noisy locations."


So this is exactly where I started the topic - soon heaven will come on 
earth :-

In the future, there may be no need to build antennas at all...


So friends, we should be happy and not nervous :-)))

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

Joe Subich, W4TV писал(а) 2024-02-19 22:29:

On 2/19/2024 3:10 PM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:


After, I found few QSOs with me, just checked few known call signs in
their LOG, found also same.

Unlike the official WSJTX software, some third party variations will
log a QSO every time it sends an acknowledgement (RR73) for a report.
If the calling ("hound") station does not hear the acknowledgement
and sends his report again, the third party software is too "dumb"
and treats the repeated report as another QSO.  When this happens
the DXPedition can rack up multiple QSOs - generally one minute apart.

This is a problem of sloppy programming on a noisy band ... not DXers
who are intentionally making multiple QSOs.

Like it or not, FT8 has been a boon to many DXers with limited antenna
situations and noisy locations.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

2024-02-19 Thread Joe Subich, W4TV



On 2/19/2024 3:10 PM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:


After, I found few QSOs with me, just checked few known call signs in
their LOG, found also same.

Unlike the official WSJTX software, some third party variations will
log a QSO every time it sends an acknowledgement (RR73) for a report.
If the calling ("hound") station does not hear the acknowledgement
and sends his report again, the third party software is too "dumb"
and treats the repeated report as another QSO.  When this happens
the DXPedition can rack up multiple QSOs - generally one minute apart.

This is a problem of sloppy programming on a noisy band ... not DXers
who are intentionally making multiple QSOs.

Like it or not, FT8 has been a boon to many DXers with limited antenna
situations and noisy locations.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2/19/2024 3:10 PM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:

I am not sure 100% about robot, but it is very similar to what I wrote.
After, I found few QSOs with me, just checked few known call signs in their
LOG, found also same.
Sam LY5W

2024-02-19, pr 21:54, Jim Brown  rašė:


On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:

Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing.


It is unreasonable to assume that all FT8 QSOs are with robots. I know
some of the very experienced CW ops who run FT8 on expeditions. WSJT-X
software makes the mode quite time-efficient for expeditions. It's a
replacement for RTTY, not CW.

It should be observed that no less a great engineer and operator than
AA7JV is a strong believer in the mode. George is one of the best
operators and most innovative engineers I know. And he's got great big
balls! Check out his history. This is a guy who would swim hundred of
yards to to his boat anchored offshore to upload the log, which was on a
thumb drive in a baggie in his mouth. And who designed very effective
topband antennas specifically for the conditions on the islands where he
planned to set up. And who designed and built diplexers for Topband
transmitting antennas so that both CW and FT8 stations could be active
simultaneously every night, so that the "magic" openings that usually
occur one or two nights out of 3 weeks would not be missed. And who
invented "Radio In A Box," drastically reducing the cost and physical
difficulty of expeditions to islands.

I made several QSOs with the CB0 team this weekend during ARRL DX CW.
Great ops made it easy to work them. I did not work 160 this weekend --
storms have taken out all of my RX antennas.

73, Jim K9YC





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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

I am not sure 100% about robot, but it is very similar to what I wrote.
After, I found few QSOs with me, just checked few known call signs in their
LOG, found also same.
Sam LY5W

2024-02-19, pr 21:54, Jim Brown  rašė:

> On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
> > Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing.
>
> It is unreasonable to assume that all FT8 QSOs are with robots. I know
> some of the very experienced CW ops who run FT8 on expeditions. WSJT-X
> software makes the mode quite time-efficient for expeditions. It's a
> replacement for RTTY, not CW.
>
> It should be observed that no less a great engineer and operator than
> AA7JV is a strong believer in the mode. George is one of the best
> operators and most innovative engineers I know. And he's got great big
> balls! Check out his history. This is a guy who would swim hundred of
> yards to to his boat anchored offshore to upload the log, which was on a
> thumb drive in a baggie in his mouth. And who designed very effective
> topband antennas specifically for the conditions on the islands where he
> planned to set up. And who designed and built diplexers for Topband
> transmitting antennas so that both CW and FT8 stations could be active
> simultaneously every night, so that the "magic" openings that usually
> occur one or two nights out of 3 weeks would not be missed. And who
> invented "Radio In A Box," drastically reducing the cost and physical
> difficulty of expeditions to islands.
>
> I made several QSOs with the CB0 team this weekend during ARRL DX CW.
> Great ops made it easy to work them. I did not work 160 this weekend --
> storms have taken out all of my RX antennas.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA


On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:

Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing.


It is unreasonable to assume that all FT8 QSOs are with robots. I know 
some of the very experienced CW ops who run FT8 on expeditions. WSJT-X 
software makes the mode quite time-efficient for expeditions. It's a 
replacement for RTTY, not CW.


It should be observed that no less a great engineer and operator than 
AA7JV is a strong believer in the mode. George is one of the best 
operators and most innovative engineers I know. And he's got great big 
balls! Check out his history. This is a guy who would swim hundred of 
yards to to his boat anchored offshore to upload the log, which was on a 
thumb drive in a baggie in his mouth. And who designed very effective 
topband antennas specifically for the conditions on the islands where he 
planned to set up. And who designed and built diplexers for Topband 
transmitting antennas so that both CW and FT8 stations could be active 
simultaneously every night, so that the "magic" openings that usually 
occur one or two nights out of 3 weeks would not be missed. And who 
invented "Radio In A Box," drastically reducing the cost and physical 
difficulty of expeditions to islands.


I made several QSOs with the CB0 team this weekend during ARRL DX CW. 
Great ops made it easy to work them. I did not work 160 this weekend -- 
storms have taken out all of my RX antennas.


73, Jim K9YC

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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

 My CW totals are correct; FT8 are not.  I've only worked them once, yet they 
show two for each FT8 QSO.

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:33:36 AM MST, Jeff via Topband 
 wrote:  
 
 
I worked CB0ZA last Thursday evening on 80 & 160 FT8 (only once).

Checked club log 5 min after qso and showed only 1 contact.
Checked again 30min later and showed 2 qsos.

This happened for both bands.

All my cw qsos showed only 1.

NE0DX

Jeff Reynolds

Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
> Try to check different call-signs on FT8 https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA
> 160, 80m their robot working very quickly :)
> Sam LY5W
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 5:47 PM Steve Harrison  wrote:
>
>> Interesting... my logcheck only shows the correct one CW QSO per band.
>>
>> Steve, K0XP
>>
>> On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
>>> Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing.
>>> I called them one time, when got RR73, but I am in their LOG 4 times.
>>> BandCWFT8
>>> 160 4
>>> 80 2
>>> 20 1
>>> 12 1
>>> 10 1Man, you sick, stop your comment's.
>>> Look to other:
>>> Callsign to check:
>>>
>>> BandCWFT8
>>> 160 2
>>> 80 2
>>> 10 1
>>>

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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

2024-02-19 Thread Jeff via Topband



I worked CB0ZA last Thursday evening on 80 & 160 FT8 (only once).

Checked club log 5 min after qso and showed only 1 contact.
Checked again 30min later and showed 2 qsos.

This happened for both bands.

All my cw qsos showed only 1.

NE0DX

Jeff Reynolds

Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:

Try to check different call-signs on FT8 https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA
160, 80m their robot working very quickly :)
Sam LY5W

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 5:47 PM Steve Harrison  wrote:


Interesting... my logcheck only shows the correct one CW QSO per band.

Steve, K0XP

On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:

Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing.
I called them one time, when got RR73, but I am in their LOG 4 times.
BandCWFT8
160 4
80 2
20 1
12 1
10 1Man, you sick, stop your comment's.
Look to other:
Callsign to check:

BandCWFT8
160 2
80 2
10 1

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 3:59 PM uy0zg via Topband
Heaven will soon come to planet Earth. People make 6 QSOs with FT at
160. Super:

https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA
Log Search
This form allows you to check if you are "in the log". It only works for
registered Club Log users and expeditions that have uploaded their logs.

Log to search:  CB0ZA
31,809 QSOs logged between 2024-02-11 15:16Z and 2024-02-19 13:05Z
Callsign to check:
UR5WA

BandCW  FT8
160 6
10  1

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

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


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

Reflector
--
See my QRZ.com page at *https://www.qrz.com/db/K0XP*
_
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: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

Again provocations and insults. This ly5w has been following me 
obsessively for ten years now. What does he want from me.




___
I perfectly understand the work of the robot and made a good joke about 
the future :-(




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

Saulius Zalnerauskas писал(а) 2024-02-19 17:27:

Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot
doing.
I called them one time, when got RR73, but I am in their LOG 4 times.

BAND
CW
FT8

160

4

80

2

20

1

12
1

10
1

Man, you sick, stop your comment's.
Look to other:

Callsign to check:

BAND
CW
FT8

160

2

80

2

10
1

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 3:59 PM uy0zg via Topband
 wrote:


Heaven will soon come to planet Earth. People make 6 QSOs with FT at

160. Super:

https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA
Log Search
This form allows you to check if you are "in the log". It only works
for
registered Club Log users and expeditions that have uploaded their
logs.

Log to search:  CB0ZA
31,809 QSOs logged between 2024-02-11 15:16Z and 2024-02-19 13:05Z
Callsign to check:
UR5WA

BandCW  FT8
160 6
10  1

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

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


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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

Try to check different call-signs on FT8 https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA
160, 80m their robot working very quickly :)
Sam LY5W

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 5:47 PM Steve Harrison  wrote:

> Interesting... my logcheck only shows the correct one CW QSO per band.
>
> Steve, K0XP
>
> On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
> > Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing.
> > I called them one time, when got RR73, but I am in their LOG 4 times.
> > BandCWFT8
> > 160 4
> > 80 2
> > 20 1
> > 12 1
> > 10 1Man, you sick, stop your comment's.
> > Look to other:
> > Callsign to check:
> >
> > BandCWFT8
> > 160 2
> > 80 2
> > 10 1
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 3:59 PM uy0zg via Topband >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Heaven will soon come to planet Earth. People make 6 QSOs with FT at
> >> 160. Super:
> >>
> >> https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA
> >> Log Search
> >> This form allows you to check if you are "in the log". It only works for
> >> registered Club Log users and expeditions that have uploaded their logs.
> >>
> >> Log to search:  CB0ZA
> >> 31,809 QSOs logged between 2024-02-11 15:16Z and 2024-02-19 13:05Z
> >> Callsign to check:
> >> UR5WA
> >>
> >> BandCW  FT8
> >> 160 6
> >> 10  1
> >>
> >> --
> >> Nick, UY0ZG
> >> http://www.topband.in.ua
> >>
> >> _
> >> Searchable Archives:http://www.contesting.com/_topband  - Topband
> >> Reflector
> >>
> > _
> > Searchable Archives:http://www.contesting.com/_topband  - Topband
> Reflector
> --
> See my QRZ.com page at *https://www.qrz.com/db/K0XP*
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA


Interesting... my logcheck only shows the correct one CW QSO per band.

Steve, K0XP

On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:

Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing.
I called them one time, when got RR73, but I am in their LOG 4 times.
BandCWFT8
160 4
80 2
20 1
12 1
10 1Man, you sick, stop your comment's.
Look to other:
Callsign to check:

BandCWFT8
160 2
80 2
10 1

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 3:59 PM uy0zg via Topband
wrote:


Heaven will soon come to planet Earth. People make 6 QSOs with FT at
160. Super:

https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA
Log Search
This form allows you to check if you are "in the log". It only works for
registered Club Log users and expeditions that have uploaded their logs.

Log to search:  CB0ZA
31,809 QSOs logged between 2024-02-11 15:16Z and 2024-02-19 13:05Z
Callsign to check:
UR5WA

BandCW  FT8
160 6
10  1

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

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


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

--
See my QRZ.com page at *https://www.qrz.com/db/K0XP*
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing.
I called them one time, when got RR73, but I am in their LOG 4 times.
BandCWFT8
160 4
80 2
20 1
12 1
10 1Man, you sick, stop your comment's.
Look to other:
Callsign to check:

BandCWFT8
160 2
80 2
10 1

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 3:59 PM uy0zg via Topband 
wrote:

> Heaven will soon come to planet Earth. People make 6 QSOs with FT at
> 160. Super:
>
> https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA
> Log Search
> This form allows you to check if you are "in the log". It only works for
> registered Club Log users and expeditions that have uploaded their logs.
>
> Log to search:  CB0ZA
> 31,809 QSOs logged between 2024-02-11 15:16Z and 2024-02-19 13:05Z
> Callsign to check:
> UR5WA
>
> BandCW  FT8
> 160 6
> 10  1
>
> --
> Nick, UY0ZG
> http://www.topband.in.ua
>
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA