I hit enter by mistake, but that sum's it up from my perspective. -Steve Raas N2JDQ
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Steven Raas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I know for the year or so I was very active on TB JT65, that > I never once EVER ( I am an east coast station aswell ) worked a single > station In Europe, or any other DX excluding Canada. Not even Mexico on > JT65 or any other 'digital mode'. I truly believe that the dream of regular > DX on 160m JT65 would only be accomplished on a regular or even > semi-regular basis with 2 stations that are slightly below ' Barely > adequately ' equipped, or better. However, many many MANY 160m JT65 Ops are > not even that well equipped, ( myself INCLUDED ). Hence why I tossed the > illusion that JT65 would provide me with a minimalist QSO exchange , > frequently, during the better propagating months. As soon as I switched > into CW , when there WAS prop, qso exchanges were faster & more reliable ( > for DX contacts ) in the event of decent propogation, due to the mass of > goo in between my ears, than most 'weak sig' JT65 160m qso's dx or not. > Fact being , for a reliable JT65 qso, it is frequently necessary for a > signal to not be affected by long fades of QSB, sometimes as most of us > know, lasting minutes, this is common place for many of us with out the > ideal, close to ideal or even adequate receiving set ups. As you can see I > have not left out the exceptions here, I'm sure there are some 160M JT65 > ops, with long beverages, HI-Z's, Pennants & flags ect ect, as well as > efficient radiators & the like, however they are NOT the majority. With > this being said, even myself having done JT65 ALOT on 160m, with a sub sub > par station, it is NOT fair of me to continue to, or others to subject > people whom can, efficiently utilize the spectrum due to our limitations, > without being subject to frequent, occasional, or rare spurious > transmissions, intentional or not. Those of us whom share in my belief of > my past definition of a less than adequate 160m station, are in fact in my > personal belief 'experimenting' on 160m JT65, due to not having, being > limited to, or knowing how to deploy adequate & efficient stations. > > There is much room for interpretation in the phrases I have > used, as I'm sure many will want to mince words & hop into the semantics , > ( that solves or educates nothing / anyone ) fact is, if you or I are > experimenting on 160 jt65 ( like I was, yes I am admitting my own actions > here and lots of it ), I belong in the portion of the band devoted for such > uses, Digital or Experimental. Addressing the DX contacts, I would be > willing to bet that over 99.5% of successful JT65 QSO's , on the 160M band > are not Transoceanic or DX contacts. The possibility of such QSOs, should > not be the deciding factor on JT65 or any digital transmissions being > allowed there. This in fact, may be completely opposite from other bands > during the colder months, such as 80m, where I personally found, these > QSO's are much easier with..a poorly equipped station ( that is in the > digital segment of the band ). I will add, it took me many conversations > with multiple people to follow this belief that I now have, and even tho it > is possible that 'massive , huge, daily, & constant' interference may not > be the norm, why risk the chance? > > I stand by the belief that if properly presented, with facts, > in a non condescending manor, seeking to educate those like myself whom > are, may be or are slightly ignorant on the possibility of an issue here, > that the possibility of continued, additional or further interference > issues , can be drastically reduced. There is also the Manufacture of goods > ( transmitters ) side of things too, which is just as much of an issue, > however that's where the education & sharing of knowledge with others comes > into play. For the majority of us being not able to change our technical > specifications of our transmitters sending base band audio tones in a SSB > mode today, the only thing that can change today, is how & where we choose > to use them. > > I dont believe that the majority of Digi-ops would have issues > with this , as most are there to check things out n see if they 'can do > this' or not. Many, are infact chasing paper or personal goals if that is > the case, such as I was when active. So, in the quest to achieve these > goals within our shared hobby , their information stream is given to them, > threw the web, word of mouth, clubs & publications, just like the rest of > us. If they have no access to factual information regarding the > possibilities of such spurious emissions, is it shame on them for > utilizing their mode of interest there, where suggested by their interest > group(s) and or peers or shame on us, for not educating & informing those > whom have chosen to share their information with like minded individuals? > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Mike Armstrong <[email protected]> wrote: > >> All..... herein lies THE major problem with putting the digital guys >> elsewhere. JT-65 (and others of that ilk) are NOT ragchew modes. They are >> really only useful for award chasing since what is sent is pretty much >> limited to calls, locations and signal strengths. The guys using these >> modes (the JT series) aren't having lengthy conversations. So shuttling >> them off to places that are used mainly for chewing the rag doesn't do them >> any good at all. They are chasing states and DX. >> >> For anyone not familiar with the actual "content" of a JT65 QSO, go to >> the WSJT web site and take a look. As I mentioned, the QSO "content" is >> pretty limited and meant for a specific purpose..... making and confirming >> a qso...... and that is about it. I don't want to start a firestorm on >> ragchewing vs contest-type qsos..... I just wanted to inform those who may >> be unfamiliar with these modes that their purpose is TRULY dxing and state >> chasing, for lack of a better way to explain them. >> >> Fair Winds >> Mike (AB7ZU) >> >> Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka >> >> > On Jan 2, 2014, at 13:16, Chris G3SVL <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> On 02/01/2014 18:20, Shoppa, Tim wrote: >> >> I think we could encourage use of ARRL band plan, by not complaining >> when digital modes show up in 1800-1810. >> > Tim, >> > >> > That doesn't help those of us in Region 1 who don't have access to 1800 >> - 1810? >> > >> > 73 & HNY >> > >> > Chris, G3SVL >> > >> > _________________ >> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> > > _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
