Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)
So why does everyone have to play by your rules and not those of the people giving out the awards? How about the built in 10 to 15 db advantage of living next to the pond may give? Remote radio is ok but Digital is not. You get your awards your way, I will get mine mine. 73 W0MU On 10/26/2017 2:27 PM, k8...@alphacomm.net wrote: Hi Steve, Thank you very much for bringing this topic up, and for your summary. The elephant in the room needed addressing. I almost bought the new transceiver I've been wanting this yearuntil I saw the reflector post about the gentleman who "worked 20 new ones this season, and I couldn't hear any of them!". Since then I've seen a couple of DX entities I need (I'm now at 235) which were operating digital only...The new purchase is now on hold, until I see how this plays out. If there is a rapid change to digital only DXing on 160, I'm going to be happy I saved my money for one of my more interesting hobbies. Those digital operators who don't understand why their DX qso's shouldn't count the same are purposely overlooking their 10-15 dB advantage. Looking at it another way, if the ARRL doesn't create a Phone, CW, and Digital classification for their awards and contests, then their present "rewards" will be cheapened by 10-15 dB I haven't operated QRP, but have great respect for anyone who tackles TopBand that way. I, too, have the utmost respect for those DXCC Honor Roll members who have spent decades getting there. If their efforts can be duplicated easily by anyone having a 10-15 dB advantage, this is great technologically, but obviously isn't the same. The ARRL and probably CQ need to address this head on. I've been licensed for over 60 years, and have been a thankful participant in ham radio's golden years, but if continuing on means having to make qso's that I don't hear and that I can't understand without a computer, then it's of no further interest. I was an avid 2 meter VHFer for decades and managed to work all 50 states in less than a year, using every form of propagation available. First meteor scatter fell to digital modes, then eme followed, and finally long range tropo. I dismantled the big voice from EN75, and went to TopBand to avoid such activity. Now it has hit 160 Like I said, I'll be interested to see how this plays out. If it goes all digital, I'm gone. Back to the 5 string banjo, antique (1920's) broadcast radios, brook trout fishing (where I don't use stocked trout ponds that guarantee fish), bird hunting (and not at those hunt clubs that raise birds and release them when you want to shoot), and primitive camping. All these are much more entertaining than watching my computer "work" DX when I push a button. Thanks again Steve, well done... Brian K8BHZ On 10/26/2017 9:43 AM, Steve Ireland wrote: G’day Thanks very much to all those who contributed to the thread following my ‘FT8 - the end of 160m old school DXing?’ post. Here is a summary of what appeared in my ‘In Box’. First, special thanks to CJ Johnson WT2P for bravely giving the ‘new school’ perspective and actually taking radio, in FT-8 form, into his workplace . As CJ says, FT-8 is just another natural progression of the hobby, which actually appeals to the ‘20-somethings’ we need to join us (and who just happened to be brought up with lots of screens rather than cardboard loudspeakers and bakelite headphones). Vive la difference! In regard to the emails received via the reflector or privately, there were three things that came through very loud and clear (actually deafening). 1. There are lots of long-time, old-school topbanders (and 6m users) like me who enjoy chasing weak signal DX on CW and SSB and are now worried about the future of this activity because of the current high usage rates of FT-8 on those bands. Always better when you aren’t alone! --- 2. We can band together and do something about this - the solution for us old school ops who want to keep CW and SSB vital on the two magic bands is to go back to first principles – lots of CQing, tuning the band regularly and answering CQs – rather than just watching our bandscopes and DX clusters. We all know that only activity breeds more activity. Duuh! (I feel really stupid now). As JC N4IS said: ”With the computer our habits are different. Nowadays we turn [to] the PC first and if we see a spot or a RBN entry we try to call We should [go] back to call[ing] CQ for the fun to work someone. Call CQ five times and then turn your computer on, every day. If all of us do it once a day, the band will be fun again.” We’ve all got CW memory and/or voice keyers – if we don’t want to actually CQ manually, we can use them for lots of daily CQing and make sure we answer anyone who calls us. We also need to answer those who we hear calling CQ to keep the band alive, even if we worked them the day before – as we
Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)
>>>AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: Mark K3MSB [mailto:mark.k3...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 1:28 PM To: Dave AA6YQ Cc: topBand List Subject: Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long) You can’t retract any awards, and I don’t believe you even have to worry about that. >>>I'm not personally worried, Mark. As I said, none of my DXCC or Challenge >>>award credits were made with K1JT modes. I was referring to the impact on >>>award recipients who included K1JT modes in their submissions over the past >>>several years. Let’s say you have 150 Confirmed on 160M right now using a combination of SSB, CW, FT8 etc. The current single band award would not change – it’s “Mixed” by default. I would envision 3 new awards to come into existence -- 160M-SSB, 160M-CW, and 160M-FT8. As I mentioned before, once you have the software written for one mode specific band award (ex: 160M-CW), >>>Extending DXCC to include band-mode combinations would have large >>>implications for the award program. Why just for 160m, as you propose above? >>>From the other extreme, many ops complain about pileup congestion caused by >>>award chasers seeking new entity-bands for DXCC Challenge; adding >>>entity-band-modes would make this worse. then it’s a simple extension to add –SSB, -FT8, -AM, -PSK31, -Digital etc (unless you really bolloxed up the architectural stage of the software design). The ability to easily add new band/mode combinations will be essential to facilitate new modes that will be available in the future.Like I posted before, it’s not rocket science to get this done. >>>Given the context, it's not obvious why you're focusing on software, but if >>>you're referring to DXLab, which I develop and maintain, it has long >>>supported the pursuit of WAZ awards, which do support a full matrix of >>>zones, bands, and modes. I'll extend DXLab to support whatever the ARRL and >>>the other primary award sponsors do, as I (and other logging application >>>developers) have done for many years. >>>A "level playing field" issue that ops have raised is that some have >>>labored a lifetime to achieve Honor Roll on RTTY, only to have the ARRL >>>"dilute" this by accepting digital modes that make it "easier" to work DX: >>>PSK, Olivia, JT65, and now FT8. There's a similar issue with Mixed awards >>>for particularly challenging bands like 160m and 6m. Adding new >>>mode-specific awards avoids the "retraction" issue that would occur if the >>>ARRL were to redefine the 160m DXCC awards and endorsements to exclude FT8, >>>or redefine the DXCC Digital awards and endorsements to exclude FT8 - but >>>adding new mode-specific awards doesn't address the "dilution of my lifelong >>>effort" issue. 73, Dave, AA6YQ _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)
Hi Steve, Thank you very much for bringing this topic up, and for your summary. The elephant in the room needed addressing. I almost bought the new transceiver I've been wanting this yearuntil I saw the reflector post about the gentleman who "worked 20 new ones this season, and I couldn't hear any of them!". Since then I've seen a couple of DX entities I need (I'm now at 235) which were operating digital only...The new purchase is now on hold, until I see how this plays out. If there is a rapid change to digital only DXing on 160, I'm going to be happy I saved my money for one of my more interesting hobbies. Those digital operators who don't understand why their DX qso's shouldn't count the same are purposely overlooking their 10-15 dB advantage. Looking at it another way, if the ARRL doesn't create a Phone, CW, and Digital classification for their awards and contests, then their present "rewards" will be cheapened by 10-15 dB I haven't operated QRP, but have great respect for anyone who tackles TopBand that way. I, too, have the utmost respect for those DXCC Honor Roll members who have spent decades getting there. If their efforts can be duplicated easily by anyone having a 10-15 dB advantage, this is great technologically, but obviously isn't the same. The ARRL and probably CQ need to address this head on. I've been licensed for over 60 years, and have been a thankful participant in ham radio's golden years, but if continuing on means having to make qso's that I don't hear and that I can't understand without a computer, then it's of no further interest. I was an avid 2 meter VHFer for decades and managed to work all 50 states in less than a year, using every form of propagation available. First meteor scatter fell to digital modes, then eme followed, and finally long range tropo. I dismantled the big voice from EN75, and went to TopBand to avoid such activity. Now it has hit 160 Like I said, I'll be interested to see how this plays out. If it goes all digital, I'm gone. Back to the 5 string banjo, antique (1920's) broadcast radios, brook trout fishing (where I don't use stocked trout ponds that guarantee fish), bird hunting (and not at those hunt clubs that raise birds and release them when you want to shoot), and primitive camping. All these are much more entertaining than watching my computer "work" DX when I push a button. Thanks again Steve, well done... Brian K8BHZ On 10/26/2017 9:43 AM, Steve Ireland wrote: G’day Thanks very much to all those who contributed to the thread following my ‘FT8 - the end of 160m old school DXing?’ post. Here is a summary of what appeared in my ‘In Box’. First, special thanks to CJ Johnson WT2P for bravely giving the ‘new school’ perspective and actually taking radio, in FT-8 form, into his workplace . As CJ says, FT-8 is just another natural progression of the hobby, which actually appeals to the ‘20-somethings’ we need to join us (and who just happened to be brought up with lots of screens rather than cardboard loudspeakers and bakelite headphones). Vive la difference! In regard to the emails received via the reflector or privately, there were three things that came through very loud and clear (actually deafening). 1. There are lots of long-time, old-school topbanders (and 6m users) like me who enjoy chasing weak signal DX on CW and SSB and are now worried about the future of this activity because of the current high usage rates of FT-8 on those bands. Always better when you aren’t alone! --- 2. We can band together and do something about this - the solution for us old school ops who want to keep CW and SSB vital on the two magic bands is to go back to first principles – lots of CQing, tuning the band regularly and answering CQs – rather than just watching our bandscopes and DX clusters. We all know that only activity breeds more activity. Duuh! (I feel really stupid now). As JC N4IS said: ”With the computer our habits are different. Nowadays we turn [to] the PC first and if we see a spot or a RBN entry we try to call We should [go] back to call[ing] CQ for the fun to work someone. Call CQ five times and then turn your computer on, every day. If all of us do it once a day, the band will be fun again.” We’ve all got CW memory and/or voice keyers – if we don’t want to actually CQ manually, we can use them for lots of daily CQing and make sure we answer anyone who calls us. We also need to answer those who we hear calling CQ to keep the band alive, even if we worked them the day before – as we did in the older, less hurried, more polite days of yore. 3. The ARRL could be encouraged to change the DXCC program and add a new mode-specific category for the evolving ‘new wave’ (i.e. WSJT) family of digital modes, where contacts can be made with stations that are basically inaudible (i.e. as Hans
Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)
You can’t retract any awards, and I don’t believe you even have to worry about that. Let’s say you have 150 Confirmed on 160M right now using a combination of SSB, CW, FT8 etc. The current single band award would not change – it’s “Mixed” by default. I would envision 3 new awards to come into existence -- 160M-SSB, 160M-CW, and 160M-FT8. As I mentioned before, once you have the software written for one mode specific band award (ex: 160M-CW), then it’s a simple extension to add –SSB, -FT8, -AM, -PSK31, -Digital etc (unless you really bolloxed up the architectural stage of the software design). The ability to easily add new band/mode combinations will be essential to facilitate new modes that will be available in the future.Like I posted before, it’s not rocket science to get this done. 73 Mark K3MSB On Oct 26, 2017 12:31 PM, "Dave AA6YQ"wrote: An issue that you'll have to confront in your proposal to the ARRL is the disposition of awards already granted to operators based on QSOs made in "K1JT modes". Will recent DXCC awards that included some FT8 QSOs be retracted? Will 5BDXCC awards or Challenge endorsements be retracted if they included JT65 QSOs? What about WAS and VUCC awards? For the record, none of my DXCC or Challenge award credits come from "K1JT mode" QSOs, but I am using FT8 QSOs in this year's CQ DX Marathon on 160m. 73, Dave, AA6YQ _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)
That's right. Make sure to disable PSKReporter in WSJT-X, and Hamspot.net in JTAlert. This way you won't look bad saying one thing, and doing another. LOL 73 de Vince, VA3VF On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:35 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchettwrote: > > I know that 3Y0X will have the ability to do FT8 with them. Like I said > earlier, when they get on 160m FT8, if they do, how many calls of people > dead against this mode will we see in the pileups... > > > W0MU > > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)
The ARRL will create a new certificate. It will be new income. This is a no brainer. They already have an FT8 mode in WAS. I know that 3Y0X will have the ability to do FT8 with them. Like I said earlier, when they get on 160m FT8, if they do, how many calls of people dead against this mode will we see in the pileups... DX pileups should not be that much different than RTTY. They will need to tell people to operate split, which is fine because FT decodes the entire FT8 spectrum. W0MU On 10/26/2017 9:27 AM, Tim Shoppa wrote: Quoting ARRL Contest Update for October 18 2017: "FT8 mode usage continues to increase! According to a tweet by Michael, G7VJR, operator of Club Log, "In September 2017, the number of FT8 QSOs uploaded to Club Log was the same as CW and SSB combined." (Bengt, K7ADD)" DXCC concept of "by mode" awards has been reworked several times in the past 70 years and I don't see why it can't be reworked again. In 1940 only 4 hams had "radiotelephone" DXCC. It wasn't until the mid-1970's that they made a certificate for CW. I'm not sure when RTTY DXCC Certificate began but it morphed into "Digital" in 2011. I do a lot of RTTY contesting and think I've built up a good skillset for that particular mode. I've made a few dozen FT8 QSO's, kinda have the basic hang of it, but I'm sure the FT8 experts know more than me about how to work rare DX with it. When we get a truly rare dxpedition using FT8 they will have to manage the pileup somehow, I'm actually looking forward to see what operating practices are adopted. Tim N3QE On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Nick Maslon - K1NZ <k...@arrl.net> wrote: Hi Dale, My comments were more aimed at the "let's separate FT/JT modes into their own separate DXCC category and disqualify them from Mixed" sentiment. I have no problem with the per mode style DXCC awards. I just wanted to point out that someone can't retroactively change the definition of Mixed because they don't like a specific mode being in there. I guess I wasn't as clear as I could have been in my phrasing. 73, Nick K1NZ On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Dale Putnam <daleput...@hotmail.com> wrote: Hi Nick, Not necessarily needed retraction. Not at all.. It seems to me that a solely one more or other.. is called for, also, a mixed mode, already in place, with any or all of a mix of modes. These are all digi modes that I am speaking of. Pretty much the same as "phone" awards.. doesn't care if it is FM voice, SSB voice, or AM voice. Neither would the "digi" award.. but the difference would be noted with a single mode cert. Have a great day, --... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy "Actions speak louder than words" 1856 - Abraham Lincoln -- *From:* Topband <topband-boun...@contesting.com> on behalf of Nick Maslon - K1NZ <k...@arrl.net> *Sent:* Thursday, October 26, 2017 8:58 AM *To:* topband@contesting.com *Subject:* Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long) I just have one question about your suggestion about creating a "new" digi DXCC award and excluding JT/FT modes from mixed. Are those people (myself included) who have applied JT/FT credit to their Mixed award and received it as such going to have to mail the certificate back to the League and have the award retracted? It will be difficult to retroactively create a "new" award without including every mode in mixed, which by definition is mixed. Creating a "Mixed but without JT/FT modes" DXCC is getting into the splitting hairs and logistics nightmare ballpark. PS. I am also one of the <30 crowd. 73, Nick K1NZ _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband TopBand Mail List Archives - contesting.com <http://www.contesting.com/_topband> www.contesting.com Topband Mailing List Archives. Search String: [How to search] Display: ... _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)
An issue that you'll have to confront in your proposal to the ARRL is the disposition of awards already granted to operators based on QSOs made in "K1JT modes". Will recent DXCC awards that included some FT8 QSOs be retracted? Will 5BDXCC awards or Challenge endorsements be retracted if they included JT65 QSOs? What about WAS and VUCC awards? For the record, none of my DXCC or Challenge award credits come from "K1JT mode" QSOs, but I am using FT8 QSOs in this year's CQ DX Marathon on 160m. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Steve Ireland Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 9:43 AM To: Topband reflector Subject: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long) G�day Thanks very much to all those who contributed to the thread following my �FT8 - the end of 160m old school DXing?� post. Here is a summary of what appeared in my �In Box�. First, special thanks to CJ Johnson WT2P for bravely giving the �new school� perspective and actually taking radio, in FT-8 form, into his workplace . As CJ says, FT-8 is just another natural progression of the hobby, which actually appeals to the �20-somethings� we need to join us (and who just happened to be brought up with lots of screens rather than cardboard loudspeakers and bakelite headphones). Vive la difference! In regard to the emails received via the reflector or privately, there were three things that came through very loud and clear (actually deafening). 1. There are lots of long-time, old-school topbanders (and 6m users) like me who enjoy chasing weak signal DX on CW and SSB and are now worried about the future of this activity because of the current high usage rates of FT-8 on those bands. Always better when you aren�t alone! --- 2. We can band together and do something about this - the solution for us old school ops who want to keep CW and SSB vital on the two magic bands is to go back to first principles � lots of CQing, tuning the band regularly and answering CQs � rather than just watching our bandscopes and DX clusters. We all know that only activity breeds more activity. Duuh! (I feel really stupid now). As JC N4IS said: �With the computer our habits are different. Nowadays we turn [to] the PC first and if we see a spot or a RBN entry we try to call We should [go] back to call[ing] CQ for the fun to work someone. Call CQ five times and then turn your computer on, every day. If all of us do it once a day, the band will be fun again.� We�ve all got CW memory and/or voice keyers � if we don�t want to actually CQ manually, we can use them for lots of daily CQing and make sure we answer anyone who calls us. We also need to answer those who we hear calling CQ to keep the band alive, even if we worked them the day before � as we did in the older, less hurried, more polite days of yore. 3. The ARRL could be encouraged to change the DXCC program and add a new mode-specific category for the evolving �new wave� (i.e. WSJT) family of digital modes, where contacts can be made with stations that are basically inaudible (i.e. as Hans SM6CVX suggested, where the signal levels are �1dB or more below the noise). To keep the peace with existing DXCC holders, one potential solution is those traditional modes which generally need audibility � typically CW, SSB, RTTY and PSK-31 � would count for the long-standing Mixed mode, but the inaudible �new wave� digi modes would not. However, the growing and evolving family of inaudible �new wave� digital modes could have a whole, bright, shiny new DXCC category to themselves, for which all the current WSJT modes and their evolving, successor modes would count. This �new wave� digital award could have a new cool, 21st century-looking certificate (are holograms 21st century?) , would give new wave digital operators the chance to be among the first to get this award and would also give the ARRL DXCC program the chance to potentially get some extra revenue in issuing these awards. Of course, all the contacts would be submitted electronically. ;-) Another different but related idea came from Mark K3MSB - why not ask the ARRL to consider awarding band-specific DXCC awards with mode endorsements (i.e. 160M DXCC-CW, 160M DXCC-FT8, 40M-Digital, 17M-SSB etc). If we want to get this kind of change to the ARRL�s DXCC program, then as Mark suggests we need to make our voices heard. This could be simply done by creating an electronic petition to the ARRL signed by as many current members of the DXCC program as possible, clearly spelling out what sort of change the petitioners think is needed. There is a great website which can be used for this purpose - see https://www.change.org/start-a-petition � and it should be easy to
Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8?
Most of you know where my heart is on this one. And there are some good suggestions for keeping the old school modes vibrant. While good intentioned, the idea of splitting up the DXCC award is going to be a wasted effort. I would argue remote operating has already changed the DXCC landscape in a major way. Whether it's good or bad is a personal thing. Technology is constantly changing. The DXCC program will never keep up. Get on the air. Do your thing. Have fun. When it ceases to be fun for me, then I know I'll move onto something else. Anyone up for a contest this weekend? 73 Ken K4ZW _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)
Gentlemen: Tim writes very well below. However, I have had 45 or more FT8 emails and I truly think we are airing the same laundry many times. Steve Ireland did raise a very good point..but While I respect all the varied opinions, it may be time to stop beating the modes to death (new and old) and get on with real stuff like how strong or weak the H40 station was two days ago, how strong 3C0L was the other night, or the VK9 announcement about 4 square RX antennas with no preamps at the verticals. Thank you for your patience... mine has gone click-click-click on the delete button many times this week. 73 to all, George, K8GG > Quoting ARRL Contest Update for October 18 2017: > > "FT8 mode usage continues to increase! According to a tweet by Michael, > G7VJR, operator of Club Log, "In September 2017, the number of FT8 QSOs > uploaded to Club Log was the same as CW and SSB combined." (Bengt, K7ADD)" > > DXCC concept of "by mode" awards has been reworked several times in the > past 70 years and I don't see why it can't be reworked again. > > In 1940 only 4 hams had "radiotelephone" DXCC. > > It wasn't until the mid-1970's that they made a certificate for CW. > > I'm not sure when RTTY DXCC Certificate began but it morphed into > "Digital" > in 2011. > > I do a lot of RTTY contesting and think I've built up a good skillset for > that particular mode. > > I've made a few dozen FT8 QSO's, kinda have the basic hang of it, but I'm > sure the FT8 experts know more than me about how to work rare DX with it. > When we get a truly rare dxpedition using FT8 they will have to manage the > pileup somehow, I'm actually looking forward to see what operating > practices are adopted. > > Tim N3QE > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Nick Maslon - K1NZ <k...@arrl.net> > wrote: > >> Hi Dale, >> >> My comments were more aimed at the "let's separate FT/JT modes into >> their >> own separate DXCC category and disqualify them from Mixed" sentiment. I >> have no problem with the per mode style DXCC awards. I just wanted to >> point >> out that someone can't retroactively change the definition of Mixed >> because >> they don't like a specific mode being in there. I guess I wasn't as >> clear >> as I could have been in my phrasing. >> >> 73, >> Nick K1NZ >> >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Dale Putnam <daleput...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Nick, >> > >> > Not necessarily needed retraction. Not at all.. >> > >> > It seems to me that a solely one more or other.. is called for, also, >> > >> > a mixed mode, already in place, with any or all of a mix of modes. >> > >> > These are all digi modes that I am speaking of. >> > >> > Pretty much the same as "phone" awards.. doesn't care if it is FM >> voice, >> > SSB voice, or AM voice. >> > >> > Neither would the "digi" award.. but the difference would be noted >> with a >> > single mode cert. >> > >> > >> > Have a great day, >> > --... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy >> > >> > "Actions speak louder than words" >> > 1856 - Abraham Lincoln >> > >> > >> > -- >> > *From:* Topband <topband-boun...@contesting.com> on behalf of Nick >> Maslon >> > - K1NZ <k...@arrl.net> >> > *Sent:* Thursday, October 26, 2017 8:58 AM >> > *To:* topband@contesting.com >> > *Subject:* Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes >> vibrant >> > alongside FT-8? (long) >> > >> > I just have one question about your suggestion about creating a "new" >> digi >> > DXCC award and excluding JT/FT modes from mixed. Are those people >> (myself >> > included) who have applied JT/FT credit to their Mixed award and >> received >> > it as such going to have to mail the certificate back to the League >> and >> > have the award retracted? It will be difficult to retroactively create >> a >> > "new" award without including every mode in mixed, which by definition >> is >> > mixed. Creating a "Mixed but without JT/FT modes" DXCC is getting into >> the >> > splitting hairs and logistics nightmare ballpark. >> > >> > PS. I am also one of the <30 crowd. >> > >> > 73, >> > Nick K1NZ >> > _ >> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> > TopBand Mail List Archives - contesting.com >> > <http://www.contesting.com/_topband> >> > www.contesting.com >> > Topband Mailing List Archives. Search String: [How to search] Display: >> ... >> > >> > >> > >> _ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> > _ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)
Quoting ARRL Contest Update for October 18 2017: "FT8 mode usage continues to increase! According to a tweet by Michael, G7VJR, operator of Club Log, "In September 2017, the number of FT8 QSOs uploaded to Club Log was the same as CW and SSB combined." (Bengt, K7ADD)" DXCC concept of "by mode" awards has been reworked several times in the past 70 years and I don't see why it can't be reworked again. In 1940 only 4 hams had "radiotelephone" DXCC. It wasn't until the mid-1970's that they made a certificate for CW. I'm not sure when RTTY DXCC Certificate began but it morphed into "Digital" in 2011. I do a lot of RTTY contesting and think I've built up a good skillset for that particular mode. I've made a few dozen FT8 QSO's, kinda have the basic hang of it, but I'm sure the FT8 experts know more than me about how to work rare DX with it. When we get a truly rare dxpedition using FT8 they will have to manage the pileup somehow, I'm actually looking forward to see what operating practices are adopted. Tim N3QE On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Nick Maslon - K1NZ <k...@arrl.net> wrote: > Hi Dale, > > My comments were more aimed at the "let's separate FT/JT modes into their > own separate DXCC category and disqualify them from Mixed" sentiment. I > have no problem with the per mode style DXCC awards. I just wanted to point > out that someone can't retroactively change the definition of Mixed because > they don't like a specific mode being in there. I guess I wasn't as clear > as I could have been in my phrasing. > > 73, > Nick K1NZ > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Dale Putnam <daleput...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Nick, > > > > Not necessarily needed retraction. Not at all.. > > > > It seems to me that a solely one more or other.. is called for, also, > > > > a mixed mode, already in place, with any or all of a mix of modes. > > > > These are all digi modes that I am speaking of. > > > > Pretty much the same as "phone" awards.. doesn't care if it is FM voice, > > SSB voice, or AM voice. > > > > Neither would the "digi" award.. but the difference would be noted with a > > single mode cert. > > > > > > Have a great day, > > --... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy > > > > "Actions speak louder than words" > > 1856 - Abraham Lincoln > > > > > > ---------- > > *From:* Topband <topband-boun...@contesting.com> on behalf of Nick > Maslon > > - K1NZ <k...@arrl.net> > > *Sent:* Thursday, October 26, 2017 8:58 AM > > *To:* topband@contesting.com > > *Subject:* Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant > > alongside FT-8? (long) > > > > I just have one question about your suggestion about creating a "new" > digi > > DXCC award and excluding JT/FT modes from mixed. Are those people (myself > > included) who have applied JT/FT credit to their Mixed award and received > > it as such going to have to mail the certificate back to the League and > > have the award retracted? It will be difficult to retroactively create a > > "new" award without including every mode in mixed, which by definition is > > mixed. Creating a "Mixed but without JT/FT modes" DXCC is getting into > the > > splitting hairs and logistics nightmare ballpark. > > > > PS. I am also one of the <30 crowd. > > > > 73, > > Nick K1NZ > > _ > > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > TopBand Mail List Archives - contesting.com > > <http://www.contesting.com/_topband> > > www.contesting.com > > Topband Mailing List Archives. Search String: [How to search] Display: > ... > > > > > > > _ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)
Mixed, as per one of the definitions: containing a mixture of both favorable and negative elements. FT8 belongs in it, it's a favorable element. LOL 73 de Vince, VA3VF On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Nick Maslon - K1NZwrote: > Hi Dale, > > My comments were more aimed at the "let's separate FT/JT modes into their > own separate DXCC category and disqualify them from Mixed" sentiment. I > have no problem with the per mode style DXCC awards. I just wanted to point > out that someone can't retroactively change the definition of Mixed because > they don't like a specific mode being in there. I guess I wasn't as clear > as I could have been in my phrasing. > > 73, > Nick K1NZ > > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)
Hi Dale, My comments were more aimed at the "let's separate FT/JT modes into their own separate DXCC category and disqualify them from Mixed" sentiment. I have no problem with the per mode style DXCC awards. I just wanted to point out that someone can't retroactively change the definition of Mixed because they don't like a specific mode being in there. I guess I wasn't as clear as I could have been in my phrasing. 73, Nick K1NZ On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Dale Putnam <daleput...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hi Nick, > > Not necessarily needed retraction. Not at all.. > > It seems to me that a solely one more or other.. is called for, also, > > a mixed mode, already in place, with any or all of a mix of modes. > > These are all digi modes that I am speaking of. > > Pretty much the same as "phone" awards.. doesn't care if it is FM voice, > SSB voice, or AM voice. > > Neither would the "digi" award.. but the difference would be noted with a > single mode cert. > > > Have a great day, > --... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy > > "Actions speak louder than words" > 1856 - Abraham Lincoln > > > -- > *From:* Topband <topband-boun...@contesting.com> on behalf of Nick Maslon > - K1NZ <k...@arrl.net> > *Sent:* Thursday, October 26, 2017 8:58 AM > *To:* topband@contesting.com > *Subject:* Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant > alongside FT-8? (long) > > I just have one question about your suggestion about creating a "new" digi > DXCC award and excluding JT/FT modes from mixed. Are those people (myself > included) who have applied JT/FT credit to their Mixed award and received > it as such going to have to mail the certificate back to the League and > have the award retracted? It will be difficult to retroactively create a > "new" award without including every mode in mixed, which by definition is > mixed. Creating a "Mixed but without JT/FT modes" DXCC is getting into the > splitting hairs and logistics nightmare ballpark. > > PS. I am also one of the <30 crowd. > > 73, > Nick K1NZ > _ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > TopBand Mail List Archives - contesting.com > <http://www.contesting.com/_topband> > www.contesting.com > Topband Mailing List Archives. Search String: [How to search] Display: ... > > > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)
Hi Nick, Not necessarily needed retraction. Not at all.. It seems to me that a solely one more or other.. is called for, also, a mixed mode, already in place, with any or all of a mix of modes. These are all digi modes that I am speaking of. Pretty much the same as "phone" awards.. doesn't care if it is FM voice, SSB voice, or AM voice. Neither would the "digi" award.. but the difference would be noted with a single mode cert. Have a great day, --... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy "Actions speak louder than words" 1856 - Abraham Lincoln From: Topband <topband-boun...@contesting.com> on behalf of Nick Maslon - K1NZ <k...@arrl.net> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 8:58 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long) I just have one question about your suggestion about creating a "new" digi DXCC award and excluding JT/FT modes from mixed. Are those people (myself included) who have applied JT/FT credit to their Mixed award and received it as such going to have to mail the certificate back to the League and have the award retracted? It will be difficult to retroactively create a "new" award without including every mode in mixed, which by definition is mixed. Creating a "Mixed but without JT/FT modes" DXCC is getting into the splitting hairs and logistics nightmare ballpark. PS. I am also one of the <30 crowd. 73, Nick K1NZ _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband TopBand Mail List Archives - contesting.com<http://www.contesting.com/_topband> www.contesting.com Topband Mailing List Archives. Search String: [How to search] Display: ... _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)
G’day Thanks very much to all those who contributed to the thread following my ‘FT8 - the end of 160m old school DXing?’ post. Here is a summary of what appeared in my ‘In Box’. First, special thanks to CJ Johnson WT2P for bravely giving the ‘new school’ perspective and actually taking radio, in FT-8 form, into his workplace . As CJ says, FT-8 is just another natural progression of the hobby, which actually appeals to the ‘20-somethings’ we need to join us (and who just happened to be brought up with lots of screens rather than cardboard loudspeakers and bakelite headphones). Vive la difference! In regard to the emails received via the reflector or privately, there were three things that came through very loud and clear (actually deafening). 1. There are lots of long-time, old-school topbanders (and 6m users) like me who enjoy chasing weak signal DX on CW and SSB and are now worried about the future of this activity because of the current high usage rates of FT-8 on those bands. Always better when you aren’t alone! --- 2. We can band together and do something about this - the solution for us old school ops who want to keep CW and SSB vital on the two magic bands is to go back to first principles – lots of CQing, tuning the band regularly and answering CQs – rather than just watching our bandscopes and DX clusters. We all know that only activity breeds more activity. Duuh! (I feel really stupid now). As JC N4IS said: ”With the computer our habits are different. Nowadays we turn [to] the PC first and if we see a spot or a RBN entry we try to call We should [go] back to call[ing] CQ for the fun to work someone. Call CQ five times and then turn your computer on, every day. If all of us do it once a day, the band will be fun again.” We’ve all got CW memory and/or voice keyers – if we don’t want to actually CQ manually, we can use them for lots of daily CQing and make sure we answer anyone who calls us. We also need to answer those who we hear calling CQ to keep the band alive, even if we worked them the day before – as we did in the older, less hurried, more polite days of yore. 3. The ARRL could be encouraged to change the DXCC program and add a new mode-specific category for the evolving ‘new wave’ (i.e. WSJT) family of digital modes, where contacts can be made with stations that are basically inaudible (i.e. as Hans SM6CVX suggested, where the signal levels are –1dB or more below the noise). To keep the peace with existing DXCC holders, one potential solution is those traditional modes which generally need audibility – typically CW, SSB, RTTY and PSK-31 – would count for the long-standing Mixed mode, but the inaudible ‘new wave’ digi modes would not. However, the growing and evolving family of inaudible ‘new wave’ digital modes could have a whole, bright, shiny new DXCC category to themselves, for which all the current WSJT modes and their evolving, successor modes would count. This ‘new wave’ digital award could have a new cool, 21st century-looking certificate (are holograms 21st century?) , would give new wave digital operators the chance to be among the first to get this award and would also give the ARRL DXCC program the chance to potentially get some extra revenue in issuing these awards. Of course, all the contacts would be submitted electronically. ;-) Another different but related idea came from Mark K3MSB - why not ask the ARRL to consider awarding band-specific DXCC awards with mode endorsements (i.e. 160M DXCC-CW, 160M DXCC-FT8, 40M-Digital, 17M-SSB etc). If we want to get this kind of change to the ARRL’s DXCC program, then as Mark suggests we need to make our voices heard. This could be simply done by creating an electronic petition to the ARRL signed by as many current members of the DXCC program as possible, clearly spelling out what sort of change the petitioners think is needed. There is a great website which can be used for this purpose - see https://www.change.org/start-a-petition – and it should be easy to publicise a petition of this kind, using reflectors. For many years I was involved in administrating amateur soccer and have experience of using electronic petitions as a means of showing an administrative body the level of support for specific changes to the way the game is run. In my experience, electronic petitions are a viable way to get rules changed these days. Some people hate them, but BIG petitions actually do get results. Hope the above summary of ideas was of interest. Please excuse me now and I’ll get along to the low end of 160m, start doing something practical like CQing and stop worrying about the demise of old school radio (which I’ve probably greatly exaggerated). Vy 73 Steve, VK6VZ/G3ZZD --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus