Lloyd - I may have overstated but did so to make the point that the Mode is sufficiently different from others that it and companion modes should have a separate award category and not lumped in with the current ones. - Alan K9MBQ
-----Original Message----- >From: Lloyd - N9LB <[email protected]> >Sent: Aug 2, 2019 7:57 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Topband: 160 > >Alan, respectfully, it doesn’t sound like you ever looked at Joe Taylor's WSJT >program and you do not understand the facts of FT8. > >Operators can NOT "walk away and not participate in making QSOs" as the >program is written. Yes, a very small number of people have hacked W1JT's >program to run continuously, but 99.99% of the FT8 users are human and >actively involved in making the QSO. > >WSJT/FT8 is very similar to the popular MMTTY RTTY program - click on a >decoded call displayed on the screen to enter that call into the program and >click on a button to start calling. > >To use WSJT/FT8 you must: >Select mode of operation >Set up eight menu screens, >Type of decode, >Select initial RX and TX frequencies ( simplex or split, and what split ) >Deal with QRM / interference / use your skill to QSY around the band segment >as conditions >And that does not include all the usual stuff: selecting the band, select the >antenna, aim the antenna, set power, etc. > >Here is link to "WSJT-X - FT8 and Beyond", the Keynote Speech of Joe Taylor, >K1JT, 21 June 2019 at the Friedrichshafen Hamvention. >http://dokufunk.org/amateur_radio/contributions/?CID=9458#A28986 > >Shall we also disqualify CW ops who use memory keyers and CW decoders? Nope > >Shall we also disqualify phone ops who use voice recorders or synthesized >voices or voice recognition programs? Nope > >It is all just new technology - get used to change! Change is inevitable. > >73 > >Lloyd - N9LB > >-----Original Message----- >From: Topband [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alan Swinger >Sent: Friday, August 02, 2019 4:22 PM >To: [email protected]; Harald Rester <[email protected]> >Cc: [email protected] >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: [email protected] >>Sent: Aug 2, 2019 4:22 PM >>To: Harald Rester <[email protected]> >>Cc: [email protected] >>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 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 >_________________ >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
