Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Wes Stewart]

In the context of this discussion I think RTTY is an "in between" mode.  
Decoding is done with a computer (or in the radio if you have a K3) but I've 
never seen a decode on a signal that I couldn't hear or see on the spectrum 
display. As a non-contest DX chaser, I find that it often takes considerable 
operator skill to work other than common DX stations, particularly in split 
pileups on RTTY.  IMHO, working RTTY is sometimes more difficult than CW and 
there is certainly less DXpedition activity.


Wes Stewart  www.qrz.com/db/n7ws



On 5/21/2017 2:40 PM, Mark K3MSB wrote:

Because I use my human skill that I developed over years to decode the CW
signal.  You don't do that for RTTY.

Unless of course you're referring to using a CW decoder wherein you just
read the decoded CW.   You REALLY don't want to know what I fell about
people that do that and say they "work CW".

Mark K3MSB

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 5:16 PM,  wrote:


*  ...What makes an RTTY QSO run off your computer (since u retired the
Model 23) any different than a JT65 QSO...OR...using your memory (computer
?) keyer to work CW ? It is no more difficult to make a computer-controlled
CW or RTTY QSO than a JT65 one..just try it if you don’t believe me. *
*73 Jay NY2NY*



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



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

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Renee K6FSB]

I second this as I was learning about some other modes...now whether I 
(to )use them or not is another story and a personal one (for each to 
decide).

Tnx
Renée, K6FSB

On 2017-05-21 03:40 PM, Mike Waters wrote:

There are two separate threads in this thread.

1. One is the effectiveness of the JT modes. Let's keep that going, by all
means!

2. The other is an issue of emotion. How about if we just drop that part?
Please?:-)

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Cecil Acuff  wrote:


This discussion is going nowhere...and will continue to go nowhere with
the exception of the ill will it spreads...on of all places...a group to
discuss things related to "The Gentlemans Band"

None of the modes of operations discussed are violations of anyone's
licenses so there is no real point...it's all an issue of emotion.


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



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

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Mike Waters]

Hi Rick,

That's a very good question indeed!

If we would go back through the Topband archives, I think that a major
factor in this is the CW skill of the operator. Some are not so good (and
we should not berate them for their lack of ability!); and those fellows
will benefit more from the digital modes.

Some folks are simply better at pulling out a very weak CW signal buried in
the noise. I think Tom Rauch, W8JI had something to say about that here in
the past. In any case, I can testify that he can hear weaker CW signals
than I can. In the ARRL 160 (1980?) both of us had cans on connected to his
R-4C in Ohio. And Tom heard the JA from NW Ohio several minutes before I
did!

I am 98% certain that Tom --and others-- can hear weak CW signals between
their two ears below what any digital mode could display on a monitor. For
those naysayers, go search back through the Topband archives here, before
you take issue with that.

Bottom line: whether any digital mode is better than CW depends on the
brain of the operator. :-)

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist <
rich...@karlquist.com> wrote:

> I've never operated JT65, so maybe some of you experts can answer a
> beginner's question.



> Searching on line, it is difficult to get a definitive answer to how much
> advantage it has over CW, but the number seems to be around 10 dB.  Maybe
> not even that much if the receiving station is using an SDR with very
> narrow CW bandwidth. So a CW station with a legal limit amplifier gets out
> better than a JT65 station without an amplifier.
>


> But I keep hearing about JT65 stations running low power, not even 100W
> barefoot.  It seems like if we could get antenna challenged stations to run
> high power on CW,
> there would be no need for JT65 in the first place.
>


> Do any significant number of 160 meter QSO's occur on JT65 at legal limit
> power levels, like they routinely do on EME?
>
> Rick N6RK
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Mike Waters]

There are two separate threads in this thread.

1. One is the effectiveness of the JT modes. Let's keep that going, by all
means!

2. The other is an issue of emotion. How about if we just drop that part?
Please?:-)

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Cecil Acuff  wrote:

> This discussion is going nowhere...and will continue to go nowhere with
> the exception of the ill will it spreads...on of all places...a group to
> discuss things related to "The Gentlemans Band"
>
> None of the modes of operations discussed are violations of anyone's
> licenses so there is no real point...it's all an issue of emotion.
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Mark K3MSB]

On the contrary Cecil;  I think that due to the fact that this long-going
thread has not had people ejected from the list nor has had intervention by
the moderator shows that all of us are indeed trying to be Gentlemen by
addressing the issues and not throwing rocks at people for their
positions.

I'm under no delusions that I'm going to change anybody's mind.   I do hope
that I've planted some seeds for other's to consider,  just as I've
appreciated some good points made by others whose overall position I am not
in agreement with.

Live and let live has it's place,  but it can also have the negative effect
of allowing issues to fester when they should otherwise be discussed and
potentially acted upon.  As others have pointed out, this discussion on the
TopBand list is not the only place this discussion has, and is, going on;
nor will it be the last.   I submit that the issues are real and not just
manifestations of emotion.

That being said, I do think we've just about beaten this poor horse to
death and are now working on the bones..

73 Mark K3MSB

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Cecil Acuff  wrote:

> This discussion is going nowhere...and will continue to go nowhere with
> the exception of the ill will it spreads...on of all places...a group to
> discuss things related to "The Gentlemans Band"
>
> None of the modes of operations discussed are violations of anyone's
> licenses so there is no real point...it's all an issue of emotion.
>
> Live and let live...
>
> 73
> Cecil
> K5DL
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Mike Waters]

Ok, per your request, here's Joe Taylor's first reply (thank you, Joe! :-).

My second question --and Joe's reply-- follows, below the first reply.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Joe Taylor  wrote:

> On 5/14/2017 11:36 PM, Mike Waters wrote:
>
>> Ok, what is the truth here? Is JT9 better than JT65 on 160m, or is it
>> inferior??
>>
>
As you should expect, the correct answer is "it depends".  Depends on
conditions of propagation, QRM, etc.

On an ideal AWGN (additive white gaussian noise) channel JT9 has a 2 dB
advantage over JT65.  But the JT65 code has more redundancy than that in
JT9, and the 2 dB advantage tends to disappear on a fading channel.

JT65 is more robust than JT9 in the presence of QRM (and possibly QRN?).

Overlapping JT65 signals are readily decoded.  Not so much for JT9. Savvy
operators using JT9 often respond to a CQ or tail-end "up" or "down" by 20
Hz or so, thereby avoiding calling on top of another caller.

I don't subscribe to topband@contesting.com or tbd...@yahoogroups.com, but
you may re-post this message there if you choose.

-- 73, Joe, K1JT


On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Brian D G3VGZ
> wrote:

... I find the better ability for JT65 to decode co-channel signals
with its two pass decoding makes up for any 2dB improvement in decoding
JT9. I also find a single static crash can take out JT9 decodes, more so
than JT65.*
*
That certainly got my attention! Has anyone else experienced this? *And if
so, what filter were you using: the wide SSB filter or a narrower CW
filter?? *I'm inclined to think that JT9 is superior to JT65 on 160m. /But
I have an open mind.
[snip]

=

*Okay, here is another question, and Joe's reply:*
=

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Joe Taylor  wrote:
Hi Mike,

... I would like to know if this is true regardless of what the bandwidth
> and shape factor is in the receiver itself. The state of the art in SDR can
> create an almost perfect filter with zero ringing /no matter what the
> bandwidth is.
>
> I realize that the SSB filter is great for browsing the JT* signals, but
> what about narrowing the signal after establishing a JT9 contact, when
> there are no overlapping signals?
>

An SSB receiver is a linear device: typically a series of amplifiers,
filters, frequency mixers, etc.

As long as things remain linear, it doesn't matter in what order these
things are done.  There is NO advantage to using a narrow filter ahead of
WSJT-X, because the program already uses digital filters tailored exactly
to the needs of the protocol.  Final detection and measurement bandwidths
for the JT65 and JT9 tones are equal to the baud rates, 2.692 and 1.736 Hz
respectively.

-- 73, Joe, K1JT
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Cecil Acuff]

This discussion is going nowhere...and will continue to go nowhere with the 
exception of the ill will it spreads...on of all places...a group to discuss 
things related to "The Gentlemans Band"

None of the modes of operations discussed are violations of anyone's licenses 
so there is no real point...it's all an issue of emotion.

Live and let live...

73 
Cecil
K5DL

Sent using recycled electrons.

> On May 21, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Mark K3MSB  wrote:
> 
> Because I use my human skill that I developed over years to decode the CW
> signal.  You don't do that for RTTY.
> 
> Unless of course you're referring to using a CW decoder wherein you just
> read the decoded CW.   You REALLY don't want to know what I fell about
> people that do that and say they "work CW".
> 
> Mark K3MSB
> 
>> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 5:16 PM,  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> *  ...What makes an RTTY QSO run off your computer (since u retired the
>> Model 23) any different than a JT65 QSO...OR...using your memory (computer
>> ?) keyer to work CW ? It is no more difficult to make a computer-controlled
>> CW or RTTY QSO than a JT65 one..just try it if you don’t believe me. *
>> *73 Jay NY2NY*
>> 
>> 
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

Re: Topband: to JT or not to JT

[DXer]

Ok...I guess that's a hint to shut up.

73 de Vince, VA3VF QRT.

On 2017-05-21 5:07 PM, Dale Putnam wrote:



Have a great day,
--... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy

"Actions speak louder than words"
1856 - Abraham Lincoln

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

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

Mark,

Very well said, but unless you consider the JT modes in a different 
class still than RTTY and PSK, except for mixed mode awards/contests, 
there is already a level playing field.


Mixed is, well, mixed, but everything else is separate already. One 
cannot apply for an SSB award with JT QSOs. One cannot compete in the 
CQWW SSB using RTTY.


The distinction you make about computer assisted modes is a good one, 
otherwise a 'crazie' could say that CW should not be a separate 
category, but be in the digital one. :^)


As for the use of remotes, they can be an issue in large countries. A 
guy in San Marino, operating his home station remotely from his cottage 
in San Marino, is not the same as a guy in Halifax, operating his home 
station remotely in Vancouver. It's perfectly 'legal' under current DXCC 
rules, but some will say it's unfair to the San Marino ham.


I was only making the point that things can change, not that they need 
to change. For me everything is fine as it's currently in place, live 
and let live, yada yada, but I accept your point that as technology 
advances and/or destroys the status quo, the existing rules need to be 
revised.


73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-21 4:29 PM, Mark K3MSB wrote:

The issue is not one of any mode being more "valid" that the other,  nor is
it one of a QSO being "valid" or "invalid" based upon the mode.If a two
way exchange is completed between two legally licensed amateur stations
using lawfully authorized modes,  the QSO is valid.I think it's that
simple.

But that's not what I had brought up in my post of several days ago.The
issue I brought up is that of a level playing field for competition / award
purposes.

Modes that require a computer to effect a QSO should be in a different
category than modes that do not.By "require" I do not mean "make
easier",  but rather could not be accomplished without a computer. My
ICOM makes a  QSO easier than my ARC-5s,  but both still need a human's
skill to complete the QSO.   Stated alternately,  modes that requires a
human skill should be categorized differently than those that do not -- and
by human skill I do not mean downloading software and  pushing buttons.  As
someone pointed out,  the DXCC rules are not part of the 10 commandments.
It is my opinion that technology has reached a new level in which the rules
need to be changed to accommodate that level.

The same is true of remote operations.I can whip out my credit card and
use a station on the west coat and get my 5 remaining zones on 80 to
complete my 5BWAZ.   I will not do that as I feel it is unsportsmanlike to
do so.   Are the QSOs legal as per the rules?   Yes (unless CQ has changed
them recently). But, to my way of thinking,  the journey is an important
part of getting to the destination.

This issue is not about validating someone's worth as a "real amateur"  (no
code, know code, extra light etc),  but rather recognizing that human skill
in achieving a goal should be treated differently than letting a computer
alone achieve the same goal that requires no such skill.

There is nothing wrong with the JT modes;  they are a wonderful advancement
in communications technology in the spirit of the advancement of amateur
radio.   But in the light of competition based upon human striving and
skill,  they are in a different category.   They are not good or bad, they
are not valid or invalid;  they are just different.  Technology has moved
on to the point where the existing rules need to be changed.

Mark K3MSB

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

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Mark K3MSB]

Because I use my human skill that I developed over years to decode the CW
signal.  You don't do that for RTTY.

Unless of course you're referring to using a CW decoder wherein you just
read the decoded CW.   You REALLY don't want to know what I fell about
people that do that and say they "work CW".

Mark K3MSB

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 5:16 PM,  wrote:

>
> *  ...What makes an RTTY QSO run off your computer (since u retired the
> Model 23) any different than a JT65 QSO...OR...using your memory (computer
> ?) keyer to work CW ? It is no more difficult to make a computer-controlled
> CW or RTTY QSO than a JT65 one..just try it if you don’t believe me. *
> *73 Jay NY2NY*
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: to JT or not to JT

[Dale Putnam]

Have a great day,
--... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy

"Actions speak louder than words"
1856 - Abraham Lincoln



From: Topband  on behalf of DXer 

Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 12:38 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: to JT or not to JT

QRP is not a mode per se, but after alot of 'pressure', the ARRL
relented and now issues a DXCC QRP award, albeit unnumbered, and outside
of the mainstream DXCC.

Nobody has been forced to apply for one, as far as I know. :^)

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-21 2:28 PM, DXer wrote:
> Hi JC,
>
> That's true, but it is an endorsement for WAS.
>
> And since the DXCC categories were not delivered to us a part of the 10
> commandments, it can change at any moment. :^)
>
> 73 de Vince, VA3VF
>
> On 2017-05-21 2:09 PM, JC wrote:
>> JT is not CW and not SSB, why it is not a category by itself.  SSB CW and
>> Digital.
>>
>> DXCC JT modes.
>>
>> Regards
>> JC
>> N4IS
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband Archives - Contesting Online Home
www.contesting.com
Topband Mailing List Archives. Search String: [How to search] Display: ...


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

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[k8...@alphacomm.net]

Very well said Mark, thank you.

Brian K8BHZ


On 5/21/2017 4:29 PM, Mark K3MSB wrote:


The issue is not one of any mode being more "valid" that the other,  
nor is it one of a QSO being "valid" or "invalid" based upon the 
mode.If a two way exchange is completed between two legally 
licensed amateur stations using lawfully authorized modes,  the QSO is 
valid.I think it's that simple.


But that's not what I had brought up in my post of several days 
ago.The issue I brought up is that of a level playing field for 
competition / award purposes.


Modes that require a computer to effect a QSO should be in a different 
category than modes that do not.By "require" I do not mean "make 
easier",  but rather could not be accomplished without a computer. 
My ICOM makes a  QSO easier than my ARC-5s,  but both still need a 
human's skill to complete the QSO.   Stated alternately,  modes that 
requires a human skill should be categorized differently than those 
that do not -- and by human skill I do not mean downloading software 
and  pushing buttons.  As someone pointed out,  the DXCC rules are not 
part of the 10 commandments.   It is my opinion that technology has 
reached a new level in which the rules need to be changed to 
accommodate that level.


The same is true of remote operations.I can whip out my credit 
card and use a station on the west coat and get my 5 remaining zones 
on 80 to complete my 5BWAZ.   I will not do that as I feel it is 
unsportsmanlike to do so.   Are the QSOs legal as per the rules?   Yes 
(unless CQ has changed them recently). But, to my way of thinking,  
the journey is an important part of getting to the destination.


This issue is not about validating someone's worth as a "real 
amateur"  (no code, know code, extra light etc),  but rather 
recognizing that human skill in achieving a goal should be treated 
differently than letting a computer alone achieve the same goal that 
requires no such skill.


There is nothing wrong with the JT modes;  they are a wonderful 
advancement in communications technology in the spirit of the 
advancement of amateur radio.   But in the light of competition based 
upon human striving and skill, they are in a different category.   
They are not good or bad, they are not valid or invalid;  they are 
just different.  Technology has moved on to the point where the 
existing rules need to be changed.


Mark K3MSB


On May 21, 2017 6:20 AM, "Mike va3mw" > wrote:


Glenn nailed it.

If you don't like it, don't use it.   No one is forcing anyone to
comply.

It is really that simple.

Mike va3mw

> On May 21, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Glenn Wyant > wrote:
>
> If an amateur has interest in  psk, jt65 etc or EME, cw or any band
> or mode; it is not for us to judge his particular interests.
>
> VA3DX
>
>
> - Original Message - From: >
> To: >
> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 11:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65
>
>
>> Promised myself I'd stay out of this, but it's getting
ridiculousComments like "I worked 20 new ones on 160, and I
never heard any of them!". Wow! That's amazing...I personally
can't find any satisfaction in claiming a contact I never heard. I
never have...Yes, the digi modes allow easier qso's that would
never have been made, but let's face it, you never made those
contacts, your computer & it's software did. Any resulting
"Awards" should be made out to your computer. Meteor scatter used
to be very popular, actually getting to hear the excited voices of
those you worked was thrilling. One m/s qso of mine was with a yl
from the Carolinas with a most delightful Southern accent...hard
to duplicate with digi modes. I don't know anyone who works or
talks about rocks anymoreno challenge. Same with eme, which I
pulled the plug on when it was no longer a challenge. How many new
eme operators have heard their own voices coming back from the
moon?  I migrated to TopBand as
 one of the last real challenges left
>> I find the litany of excuses about why one has to go to digital
means on 160 to be feeble at best." My rig can't cut it, I don't
have the antennas, I can't copy code (one of the real elephants in
the room!), my location isn't on the coast where it's easy, etc,
etc". There are MANY dxers operating successfully on small lots,
and there are a myriad of clever, small receiving antennas out
there. How about the gentleman on the left coast who worked DXCC
on 160 from his mobile!! (without digital modes).
>> My TopBand rig is quite modest, no towers or rotors. The TX
antennas are wires hanging from trees with no 

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Mark K3MSB]

The issue is not one of any mode being more "valid" that the other,  nor is
it one of a QSO being "valid" or "invalid" based upon the mode.If a two
way exchange is completed between two legally licensed amateur stations
using lawfully authorized modes,  the QSO is valid.I think it's that
simple.

But that's not what I had brought up in my post of several days ago.The
issue I brought up is that of a level playing field for competition / award
purposes.

Modes that require a computer to effect a QSO should be in a different
category than modes that do not.By "require" I do not mean "make
easier",  but rather could not be accomplished without a computer. My
ICOM makes a  QSO easier than my ARC-5s,  but both still need a human's
skill to complete the QSO.   Stated alternately,  modes that requires a
human skill should be categorized differently than those that do not -- and
by human skill I do not mean downloading software and  pushing buttons.  As
someone pointed out,  the DXCC rules are not part of the 10 commandments.
It is my opinion that technology has reached a new level in which the rules
need to be changed to accommodate that level.

The same is true of remote operations.I can whip out my credit card and
use a station on the west coat and get my 5 remaining zones on 80 to
complete my 5BWAZ.   I will not do that as I feel it is unsportsmanlike to
do so.   Are the QSOs legal as per the rules?   Yes (unless CQ has changed
them recently). But, to my way of thinking,  the journey is an important
part of getting to the destination.

This issue is not about validating someone's worth as a "real amateur"  (no
code, know code, extra light etc),  but rather recognizing that human skill
in achieving a goal should be treated differently than letting a computer
alone achieve the same goal that requires no such skill.

There is nothing wrong with the JT modes;  they are a wonderful advancement
in communications technology in the spirit of the advancement of amateur
radio.   But in the light of competition based upon human striving and
skill,  they are in a different category.   They are not good or bad, they
are not valid or invalid;  they are just different.  Technology has moved
on to the point where the existing rules need to be changed.

Mark K3MSB


On May 21, 2017 6:20 AM, "Mike va3mw"  wrote:

Glenn nailed it.

If you don't like it, don't use it.   No one is forcing anyone to comply.

It is really that simple.

Mike va3mw

> On May 21, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Glenn Wyant  wrote:
>
> If an amateur has interest in  psk, jt65 etc or EME, cw or any band
> or mode; it is not for us to judge his particular interests.
>
> VA3DX
>
>
> - Original Message - From: 
> To: 
> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 11:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65
>
>
>> Promised myself I'd stay out of this, but it's getting
ridiculousComments like "I worked 20 new ones on 160, and I never heard
any of them!". Wow! That's amazing...I personally can't find any
satisfaction in claiming a contact I never heard. I never have...Yes, the
digi modes allow easier qso's that would never have been made, but let's
face it, you never made those contacts, your computer & it's software did.
Any resulting "Awards" should be made out to your computer. Meteor scatter
used to be very popular, actually getting to hear the excited voices of
those you worked was thrilling. One m/s qso of mine was with a yl from the
Carolinas with a most delightful Southern accent...hard to duplicate with
digi modes. I don't know anyone who works or talks about rocks
anymoreno challenge. Same with eme, which I pulled the plug on when it
was no longer a challenge. How many new eme operators have heard their own
voices coming back from the moon?  I migrated to TopBand as
 one of the last real challenges left
>> I find the litany of excuses about why one has to go to digital means on
160 to be feeble at best." My rig can't cut it, I don't have the antennas,
I can't copy code (one of the real elephants in the room!), my location
isn't on the coast where it's easy, etc, etc". There are MANY dxers
operating successfully on small lots, and there are a myriad of clever,
small receiving antennas out there. How about the gentleman on the left
coast who worked DXCC on 160 from his mobile!! (without digital modes).
>> My TopBand rig is quite modest, no towers or rotors. The TX antennas are
wires hanging from trees with no more than 50' vertical rise. The 16
radials under each are only 48' long. Desperately needing a new rig, I
bought the very cheapest HF transceiver on the market (no DSP, keyer,
antenna tuner, etc). My location in Upper Michigan is not near either coast
for "easy" dx, but is unfortunately close to the auroral oval. My amp was a
non-working "gift" that doesn't run full power. However, I have 233
countries & 37 zones confirmed on 160. I have 

Re: Topband: P.O.A.

[James Wolf]

However, if they have internet capabilities in P5, then can work themselves.

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of DXer
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 12:18 PM
To: Topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: P.O.A.

Hi Paul,

Think about an eventual P5 activation, a mega one, with lots of ops.

The likelyhood that many of them will not have P5 already confirmed, is a
real possibility. They will be there making a lot of people happy, but not
adding that ATNO themselves, unless another ham operate from their home
station. And P5 being what it is, another activation may take a few
generations to happen again.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-21 12:00 PM, Paul Kiesel via Topband wrote:
> On the other hand...
> 
> Tim Pettis, KL7WE (SK), in chasing WAS on 432, was known to visit needed
rare states with a portable EME station, put it on from there, and work his
own station (as well as others) to get credit for those states. Another ham
would operate his home station. This action of visiting ops operating
stations of guys on DXpeditions continues to this day and contacts made like
this should be and are considered to be completely valid. You should
consider re-evaluating the contacts made by your good friend.
> 
> 73,
> Paul K7CW
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

Re: Topband: to JT or not to JT

[DXer]

QRP is not a mode per se, but after alot of 'pressure', the ARRL 
relented and now issues a DXCC QRP award, albeit unnumbered, and outside 
of the mainstream DXCC.


Nobody has been forced to apply for one, as far as I know. :^)

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-21 2:28 PM, DXer wrote:

Hi JC,

That's true, but it is an endorsement for WAS.

And since the DXCC categories were not delivered to us a part of the 10 
commandments, it can change at any moment. :^)


73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-21 2:09 PM, JC wrote:

JT is not CW and not SSB, why it is not a category by itself.  SSB CW and
Digital.

DXCC JT modes.

Regards
JC
N4IS

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

Re: Topband: to JT or not to JT

[DXer]

Hi JC,

That's true, but it is an endorsement for WAS.

And since the DXCC categories were not delivered to us a part of the 10 
commandments, it can change at any moment. :^)


73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-21 2:09 PM, JC wrote:

JT is not CW and not SSB, why it is not a category by itself.  SSB CW and
Digital.

DXCC JT modes.

Regards
JC
N4IS

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

Re: Topband: to JT or not to JT

[JC]

JT is not CW and not SSB, why it is not a category by itself.  SSB CW and
Digital.

DXCC JT modes.

Regards
JC
N4IS

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Sean
Waite
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 12:47 PM
To: Nick Maslon - K1NZ ; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: to JT or not to JT

In reality, this is why we have triple play and mode specific awards. The CW
only people can stay on CW, sideband on sideband, etc.

In a way, Joe Taylor and the wsjt developers are probably more in the spirit
of amateur radio than someone running a shack in a box on CW.
Pushing the limits and experimenting with new ways of communicating.

Either way, this hobby is big enough for all of us.

Sean WA1TE

On Sun, May 21, 2017, 10:35 Nick Maslon - K1NZ  wrote:

> The way I see it, do what you enjoy. That's what's great about this hobby.
> There are so many things you can do and digimodes and JT are just one 
> of them.
>
> Here's an example for you guys. Warwick, E51WL is, as far as I know, 
> the only active ham on one of the North Cook Islands. He only works JT 
> (that I'm aware of). Is my QSO on top band with him the other night 
> invalid? Do I have to wait potentially decades for the next dxpedition 
> to work someone on phone or CW for it to be a "real" QSO? Following 
> that logic, I guess I'm not a real ham because I'm a "ditless wonder" 
> (no code extra) and didn't walk uphill 20 miles in a blizzard to the 
> FCC office to take my novice test.
>
> I guess my point here is that we should be having fun and enjoying the 
> hobby. There are so many facets to this hobby. Play with the ones you 
> enjoy and keep you active. Other people have other interests and that 
> doesn't mean that they're any less of a ham. Hell, some of the digital 
> modes are bringing new, young, blood to an otherwise OM's hobby.
>
> I apologize for getting a little ranty. I'll crawl back into my hole now.
>
> 73 and the best of DX for everyone,
> Nick K1NZ
>
>
> On the Droid.
> _
> 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: to JT or not to JT

[Sean Waite]

In reality, this is why we have triple play and mode specific awards. The
CW only people can stay on CW, sideband on sideband, etc.

In a way, Joe Taylor and the wsjt developers are probably more in the
spirit of amateur radio than someone running a shack in a box on CW.
Pushing the limits and experimenting with new ways of communicating.

Either way, this hobby is big enough for all of us.

Sean WA1TE

On Sun, May 21, 2017, 10:35 Nick Maslon - K1NZ  wrote:

> The way I see it, do what you enjoy. That's what's great about this hobby.
> There are so many things you can do and digimodes and JT are just one of
> them.
>
> Here's an example for you guys. Warwick, E51WL is, as far as I know, the
> only active ham on one of the North Cook Islands. He only works JT (that
> I'm aware of). Is my QSO on top band with him the other night invalid? Do I
> have to wait potentially decades for the next dxpedition to work someone on
> phone or CW for it to be a "real" QSO? Following that logic, I guess I'm
> not a real ham because I'm a "ditless wonder" (no code extra) and didn't
> walk uphill 20 miles in a blizzard to the FCC office to take my novice
> test.
>
> I guess my point here is that we should be having fun and enjoying the
> hobby. There are so many facets to this hobby. Play with the ones you enjoy
> and keep you active. Other people have other interests and that doesn't
> mean that they're any less of a ham. Hell, some of the digital modes are
> bringing new, young, blood to an otherwise OM's hobby.
>
> I apologize for getting a little ranty. I'll crawl back into my hole now.
>
> 73 and the best of DX for everyone,
> Nick K1NZ
>
>
> On the Droid.
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: P.O.A.

[DXer]

And don't forget remotes. While they may not be feasible from every 
location and operation, it allows the DXpedioner to be at both ends of 
the same QSO.


73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-21 12:17 PM, DXer wrote:

Hi Paul,

Think about an eventual P5 activation, a mega one, with lots of ops.

The likelyhood that many of them will not have P5 already confirmed, is 
a real possibility. They will be there making a lot of people happy, but 
not adding that ATNO themselves, unless another ham operate from their 
home station. And P5 being what it is, another activation may take a few 
generations to happen again.


73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-21 12:00 PM, Paul Kiesel via Topband wrote:

On the other hand...

Tim Pettis, KL7WE (SK), in chasing WAS on 432, was known to visit 
needed rare states with a portable EME station, put it on from there, 
and work his own station (as well as others) to get credit for those 
states. Another ham would operate his home station. This action of 
visiting ops operating stations of guys on DXpeditions continues to 
this day and contacts made like this should be and are considered to 
be completely valid. You should consider re-evaluating the contacts 
made by your good friend.


73,
Paul K7CW

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

Re: Topband: P.O.A.

[DXer]

Hi Paul,

Think about an eventual P5 activation, a mega one, with lots of ops.

The likelyhood that many of them will not have P5 already confirmed, is 
a real possibility. They will be there making a lot of people happy, but 
not adding that ATNO themselves, unless another ham operate from their 
home station. And P5 being what it is, another activation may take a few 
generations to happen again.


73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-21 12:00 PM, Paul Kiesel via Topband wrote:

On the other hand...

Tim Pettis, KL7WE (SK), in chasing WAS on 432, was known to visit needed rare 
states with a portable EME station, put it on from there, and work his own 
station (as well as others) to get credit for those states. Another ham would 
operate his home station. This action of visiting ops operating stations of 
guys on DXpeditions continues to this day and contacts made like this should be 
and are considered to be completely valid. You should consider re-evaluating 
the contacts made by your good friend.

73,
Paul K7CW

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

Re: Topband: P.O.A.

[Paul Kiesel via Topband]

On the other hand...

Tim Pettis, KL7WE (SK), in chasing WAS on 432, was known to visit needed rare 
states with a portable EME station, put it on from there, and work his own 
station (as well as others) to get credit for those states. Another ham would 
operate his home station. This action of visiting ops operating stations of 
guys on DXpeditions continues to this day and contacts made like this should be 
and are considered to be completely valid. You should consider re-evaluating 
the contacts made by your good friend.

BTW, I had my first ham radio contact in Tim's shack when he was K7BRQ. We went 
to elementary and high school together.

73,
Paul K7CW

On Sun, 5/21/17, W9UCW--- via Topband  wrote:

 Subject: Topband: P.O.A.
 To: Topband@contesting.com, k8...@alphacomm.net
 Date: Sunday, May 21, 2017, 7:34 AM
 
 Brian, your comments about digital 
 modes made me think back on times 
 "BDM," (before digital modes).
 The  occurrence I'm about to describe clarified 
 what it takes for me to feel 
 accomplishment in the "on the air" part of Ham 
 radio. This happened over 40 
 years ago.
  
 While I was on one of 20 trips to South
 America  that allways included 
 operating from HK0, San Andres, a
 lifelong buddy of  mine in Illinois drove out 
 to our home and asked my wife to let
 him fire up  my station. He got on the 
 air and worked two DXpeditions at a
 couple very rare  locations, using my 
 call. He knew I didn't have those two
 and they might  not be on again for many 
 years.
  
 While he was there, he filled out QSL
 cards for  the contacts, took them 
 with him and sent them out. Neither he
 nor my wife or  daughters mentioned 
 this occurrence to me. Getting the
 cards would be the big  surprise.
  
 So later, when the cards came, I looked
 at the  date and started asking 
 questions. My buddy was all giddy about
 what he had done  for me. Everybody 
 gets their jollies in different ways
 and that's what makes the  world go 
 around. I can't think of a reason why I
 would complain about how others  get 
 theirs. But I remember looking at those
 cards and realizing that they meant  
 nothing to me. There was no
 satisfaction in the fact that they had been worked  
 from my station, because I was not part
 of the equation. .
  
 I thanked my buddy. For him, his
 jollies came  from getting in the log and 
 getting the cards, by any means
 possible. I respect  that and didn't argue. 
 He laughed and said "Those were P.O.A.
 contacts." That  means "power of 
 attorney." I wasn't happy until I had
 worked those two entities  myself. This 
 all made it clear to me how I get
 satisfaction from on-the-air  contacts.
  
 73, Barry, W9UCW
  
  
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: P.O.A.

[DXer]

Hi Barry,

Very early on, I decided that any valid personal QSO, would have to be 
made not only by me, but using my own station. This decision has kept me 
off the air for long stretches of time, and that was, and still is, fine 
with me. I don't have a problem with those thinking differently.


We're all bound to obey the rules (the ones issued from our capitals), 
and operate ethically, after that, we are free to set our own goals and 
expectations.


As the saying goes: if you are not having fun, you are not doing it 
right. :^)


73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-21 10:34 AM, W9UCW--- via Topband wrote:


So later, when the cards came, I looked at the  date and started asking
questions. My buddy was all giddy about what he had done  for me. Everybody
gets their jollies in different ways and that's what makes the  world go
around. I can't think of a reason why I would complain about how others  get
theirs. But I remember looking at those cards and realizing that they meant
nothing to me. There was no satisfaction in the fact that they had been worked
from my station, because I was not part of the equation. .


  
73, Barry, W9UCW

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

Re: Topband: N7QT on "Increasing the Rate of the JT Modes"

[DXer]

Hi Larry,

People are still debating about when to consider a QSO complete. As you 
mentioned, if you received a report, and sent a report back, the QSO is 
in theory complete. However, there is no confirmation that the other 
station received your report, hence the use of RRR. Others want 
everything, including the return 73.


73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-21 8:26 AM, Larry wrote:
The traditional JT65 QSOs are a bit like watching grass grow. But a 
couple of DXpeditions have run some JT65 lately. But I have had a number 
of cases  where I called CQ and stations responded with a signal report. 
After responding with a signal report the QSO was considered complete. 
Some still want a "73" to complete the QSO. This scheme mimics the 
traditional CW/SSB "599/59, 599/59, TU" style exchange for 
DXpeditions/contests.


There have been a number of VK and JA stations on 80 JT65 I have worked 
from the East Coast earlier in the year. Many VK, JA, HL, and YB 
stations on 40. I did work VK on 160.


73, Larry W6NWS

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

Re: Topband: to JT or not to JT

[Nick Maslon - K1NZ]

The way I see it, do what you enjoy. That's what's great about this hobby.
There are so many things you can do and digimodes and JT are just one of
them.

Here's an example for you guys. Warwick, E51WL is, as far as I know, the
only active ham on one of the North Cook Islands. He only works JT (that
I'm aware of). Is my QSO on top band with him the other night invalid? Do I
have to wait potentially decades for the next dxpedition to work someone on
phone or CW for it to be a "real" QSO? Following that logic, I guess I'm
not a real ham because I'm a "ditless wonder" (no code extra) and didn't
walk uphill 20 miles in a blizzard to the FCC office to take my novice test.

I guess my point here is that we should be having fun and enjoying the
hobby. There are so many facets to this hobby. Play with the ones you enjoy
and keep you active. Other people have other interests and that doesn't
mean that they're any less of a ham. Hell, some of the digital modes are
bringing new, young, blood to an otherwise OM's hobby.

I apologize for getting a little ranty. I'll crawl back into my hole now.

73 and the best of DX for everyone,
Nick K1NZ


On the Droid.
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: P.O.A.

[W9UCW--- via Topband]

Brian, your comments about digital  modes made me think back on times 
"BDM," (before digital modes). The  occurrence I'm about to describe clarified 
what it takes for me to feel  accomplishment in the "on the air" part of Ham 
radio. This happened over 40  years ago.
 
While I was on one of 20 trips to South America  that allways included 
operating from HK0, San Andres, a lifelong buddy of  mine in Illinois drove out 
to our home and asked my wife to let him fire up  my station. He got on the 
air and worked two DXpeditions at a couple very rare  locations, using my 
call. He knew I didn't have those two and they might  not be on again for many 
years.
 
While he was there, he filled out QSL cards for  the contacts, took them 
with him and sent them out. Neither he nor my wife or  daughters mentioned 
this occurrence to me. Getting the cards would be the big  surprise.
 
So later, when the cards came, I looked at the  date and started asking 
questions. My buddy was all giddy about what he had done  for me. Everybody 
gets their jollies in different ways and that's what makes the  world go 
around. I can't think of a reason why I would complain about how others  get 
theirs. But I remember looking at those cards and realizing that they meant  
nothing to me. There was no satisfaction in the fact that they had been worked  
from my station, because I was not part of the equation. .
 
I thanked my buddy. For him, his jollies came  from getting in the log and 
getting the cards, by any means possible. I respect  that and didn't argue. 
He laughed and said "Those were P.O.A. contacts." That  means "power of 
attorney." I wasn't happy until I had worked those two entities  myself. This 
all made it clear to me how I get satisfaction from on-the-air  contacts.
 
73, Barry, W9UCW
 
 
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: N7QT on "Increasing the Rate of the JT Modes"

[DXer]

Thank you for the link, Tim.

The first ideas/suggestions mentioned in the article are being used by 
an increasing number of operators. JT65-HF-HB9HQX and JTDX helped that 
by adding variations to the original standard messages. There was some 
discussion when these variations were introduced, some positive others 
negative. The only way to do it with WSJT-X is by using the 'free msg' box.


As for the second part, I have to read and re-read that again. I have 
seen multiples stations calling the DX in different places, but I don't 
think it was as part of this technique. I think they were just attempts 
to bring the DX to their frequency, whether to escape the 'pile up', or 
because the caller had QRM on the DX frequency.


There are times of the day that 40 and 20M are extremely busy. We are 
talking about a 2kHz agreed segment, 4kHz, if adding the JT9 segment.


Other ways to improve performance, is to take advantage of multi-pass 
decoding, built into WSJT-X and JTDX. JT65-HF does not have multi-pass 
decoding. Another is to activate split in the software. By doing this, 
the output power is always at max, regardless of where you are in the 
segment. Again, JT65-HF does not support this feature.


73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-21 6:53 AM, Tim Shoppa wrote:

http://www.arrl.org/
contest-update-issues?issue=2017-05-17

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

Topband: If you're not tapping the coherer with a baby food spoon...

[Katz Ajamas]

Those kids and their new fangled automatic tappers!
73, -Bob ah7i/w4
-- 
-do not look into LASER with remaining eye!
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: N7QT on "Increasing the Rate of the JT Modes"

[Larry]

The traditional JT65 QSOs are a bit like watching grass grow. But a 
couple of DXpeditions have run some JT65 lately. But I have had a number 
of cases  where I called CQ and stations responded with a signal report. 
After responding with a signal report the QSO was considered complete. 
Some still want a "73" to complete the QSO. This scheme mimics the 
traditional CW/SSB "599/59, 599/59, TU" style exchange for 
DXpeditions/contests.


There have been a number of VK and JA stations on 80 JT65 I have worked 
from the East Coast earlier in the year. Many VK, JA, HL, and YB 
stations on 40. I did work VK on 160.


73, Larry W6NWS

On 5/21/2017 6:53 AM, Tim Shoppa wrote:

In the latest ARRL Contest Update, N7QT has a very interesting article on
increasing rate with the usually slow JT65 modes, from a max of one QSO
every 6 minutes to one every 4 minutes. K7ADD notes an additional doubling
of rate can be achieved if you can keep two QSO's in flight at any point in
time by interleaving transmit and receive on two different frequencies
within the same band (a EXTREMELY advanced technique, and one that does not
eat much more bandwidth given the extremely low bandwidth these modes
take), giving a rate of 20 or even 30  QSO's per hour.

So possibly these methods could be used by a DXpedition that has already
worked through all the "Easy" CW guys at a higher rate earlier.

N7QT also notes that from the west coast on the pickup in activity from
Asia on JT65:  "He often decodes more signals between 14.076 MHz and 14.078
MHz than there are signals in the entire CW band segment."

See details in the ARRL contest update here: http://www.arrl.org/
contest-update-issues?issue=2017-05-17

Me? I love RTTY contesting so you might think I'd appreciate JT65. But the
one time a local friend tried to show me JT65 in action I got bored and
wandered away long before I got to see an actual QSO. But maybe us
contesters and DX'ers have something to teach these digital guys something
about rate!

Tim N3QE
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Dave Clouser]

As an electrical engineer you should realize that your rig _also_ turns 
otherwise undetected signals into something you can hear.


Open the window, hearing any DX?




- Original Message - From: 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65


Promised myself I'd stay out of this, but it's getting 
ridiculousComments like "I worked 20 new ones on 160, and I never 
heard any of them!". Wow! That's amazing...I personally can't find 
any satisfaction in claiming a contact I never heard. I never 
have...Yes, the digi modes allow easier qso's that would never have 
been made, but let's face it, you never made those contacts, your 
computer & it's software did. Any resulting "Awards" should be made 
out to your computer. Meteor scatter used to be very popular, 
actually getting to hear the excited voices of those you worked was 
thrilling. One m/s qso of mine was with a yl from the Carolinas with 
a most delightful Southern accent...hard to duplicate with digi 
modes. I don't know anyone who works or talks about rocks 
anymoreno challenge. Same with eme, which I pulled the plug on 
when it was no longer a challenge. How many new eme operators have 
heard their own voices coming back from the moon?  I migrated to 
TopBand as one of the last real challenges left


I find the litany of excuses about why one has to go to digital means 
on 160 to be feeble at best." My rig can't cut it, I don't have the 
antennas, I can't copy code (one of the real elephants in the room!), 
my location isn't on the coast where it's easy, etc, etc". There are 
MANY dxers operating successfully on small lots, and there are a 
myriad of clever, small receiving antennas out there. How about the 
gentleman on the left coast who worked DXCC on 160 from his mobile!! 
(without digital modes).


My TopBand rig is quite modest, no towers or rotors. The TX antennas 
are wires hanging from trees with no more than 50' vertical rise. The 
16 radials under each are only 48' long. Desperately needing a new 
rig, I bought the very cheapest HF transceiver on the market (no DSP, 
keyer, antenna tuner, etc). My location in Upper Michigan is not near 
either coast for "easy" dx, but is unfortunately close to the auroral 
oval. My amp was a non-working "gift" that doesn't run full power. 
However, I have 233 countries & 37 zones confirmed on 160. I have 
personally HEARD every qso made & have decoded them as necessary, in 
my HEAD. I don't spot myself or arrange skedsI don't have a 
computer in the shack.


If ham radio was to go all digital, I would walk away from itNot 
because I'm a curmudgeon, but simply because the challenge and 
resulting thrills would be gone.


Lest you think I am a ignorant technophobe, I am a degreed electrical 
engineer and have been a ham for over 60 years. I have a fine 
computer & am on it actively every daybut I never pretend that 
it's ham radio.


I realize from the comment below that it's rather boring to work digi 
modes, but I suspect that help is on the wayI am truly surprised 
that no one has produced an "app" that will take the remaining work 
out of it. You would simply download the app, check the appropriate 
boxes (DXCC, WAS, WAZ), select the desired bands, and turn it loose 
24 hours a day. It would make all the contacts for you (with similar 
robo-stations) and send you a text or email when it's through. Heck, 
it could even apply for your desired awards, and then wake up your 
printer to print your award certificate out! It would then send 
another message to pick up your awardHow truly exciting that 
would be.


Brian K8BHZ




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

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




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

Topband: N7QT on "Increasing the Rate of the JT Modes"

[Tim Shoppa]

In the latest ARRL Contest Update, N7QT has a very interesting article on
increasing rate with the usually slow JT65 modes, from a max of one QSO
every 6 minutes to one every 4 minutes. K7ADD notes an additional doubling
of rate can be achieved if you can keep two QSO's in flight at any point in
time by interleaving transmit and receive on two different frequencies
within the same band (a EXTREMELY advanced technique, and one that does not
eat much more bandwidth given the extremely low bandwidth these modes
take), giving a rate of 20 or even 30  QSO's per hour.

So possibly these methods could be used by a DXpedition that has already
worked through all the "Easy" CW guys at a higher rate earlier.

N7QT also notes that from the west coast on the pickup in activity from
Asia on JT65:  "He often decodes more signals between 14.076 MHz and 14.078
MHz than there are signals in the entire CW band segment."

See details in the ARRL contest update here: http://www.arrl.org/
contest-update-issues?issue=2017-05-17

Me? I love RTTY contesting so you might think I'd appreciate JT65. But the
one time a local friend tried to show me JT65 in action I got bored and
wandered away long before I got to see an actual QSO. But maybe us
contesters and DX'ers have something to teach these digital guys something
about rate!

Tim N3QE
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Mike va3mw]

Glenn nailed it. 

If you don't like it, don't use it.   No one is forcing anyone to comply. 

It is really that simple. 

Mike va3mw

> On May 21, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Glenn Wyant  wrote:
> 
> If an amateur has interest in  psk, jt65 etc or EME, cw or any band
> or mode; it is not for us to judge his particular interests.
> 
> VA3DX
> 
> 
> - Original Message - From: 
> To: 
> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 11:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65
> 
> 
>> Promised myself I'd stay out of this, but it's getting 
>> ridiculousComments like "I worked 20 new ones on 160, and I never heard 
>> any of them!". Wow! That's amazing...I personally can't find any 
>> satisfaction in claiming a contact I never heard. I never have...Yes, the 
>> digi modes allow easier qso's that would never have been made, but let's 
>> face it, you never made those contacts, your computer & it's software did. 
>> Any resulting "Awards" should be made out to your computer. Meteor scatter 
>> used to be very popular, actually getting to hear the excited voices of 
>> those you worked was thrilling. One m/s qso of mine was with a yl from the 
>> Carolinas with a most delightful Southern accent...hard to duplicate with 
>> digi modes. I don't know anyone who works or talks about rocks anymoreno 
>> challenge. Same with eme, which I pulled the plug on when it was no longer a 
>> challenge. How many new eme operators have heard their own voices coming 
>> back from the moon?  I migrated to TopBand as 
 one of the last real challenges left
>> I find the litany of excuses about why one has to go to digital means on 160 
>> to be feeble at best." My rig can't cut it, I don't have the antennas, I 
>> can't copy code (one of the real elephants in the room!), my location isn't 
>> on the coast where it's easy, etc, etc". There are MANY dxers operating 
>> successfully on small lots, and there are a myriad of clever, small 
>> receiving antennas out there. How about the gentleman on the left coast who 
>> worked DXCC on 160 from his mobile!! (without digital modes).
>> My TopBand rig is quite modest, no towers or rotors. The TX antennas are 
>> wires hanging from trees with no more than 50' vertical rise. The 16 radials 
>> under each are only 48' long. Desperately needing a new rig, I bought the 
>> very cheapest HF transceiver on the market (no DSP, keyer, antenna tuner, 
>> etc). My location in Upper Michigan is not near either coast for "easy" dx, 
>> but is unfortunately close to the auroral oval. My amp was a non-working 
>> "gift" that doesn't run full power. However, I have 233 countries & 37 zones 
>> confirmed on 160. I have personally HEARD every qso made & have decoded them 
>> as necessary, in my HEAD. I don't spot myself or arrange skedsI don't 
>> have a computer in the shack.
>> If ham radio was to go all digital, I would walk away from itNot because 
>> I'm a curmudgeon, but simply because the challenge and resulting thrills 
>> would be gone.
>> Lest you think I am a ignorant technophobe, I am a degreed electrical 
>> engineer and have been a ham for over 60 years. I have a fine computer & am 
>> on it actively every daybut I never pretend that it's ham radio.
>> I realize from the comment below that it's rather boring to work digi modes, 
>> but I suspect that help is on the wayI am truly surprised that no one 
>> has produced an "app" that will take the remaining work out of it. You would 
>> simply download the app, check the appropriate boxes (DXCC, WAS, WAZ), 
>> select the desired bands, and turn it loose 24 hours a day. It would make 
>> all the contacts for you (with similar robo-stations) and send you a text or 
>> email when it's through. Heck, it could even apply for your desired awards, 
>> and then wake up your printer to print your award certificate out! It would 
>> then send another message to pick up your awardHow truly exciting that 
>> would be.
>> Brian K8BHZ
>> 2017 12:39 AM, DXer wrote:
>>> >>>To me, just not the challenge of dxing mostly cw and ssb.
>>> 
>>> Fair enough. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
>>> 
>>> Another angle. I find JT65 to be a very relaxing mode. Which other mode 
>>> allows one to read and write emails, go get a coffee, answer 'nature's 
>>> call', etc. while making contacts? Timing is important, but doable. :^)
>>> 
>>> 73 de Vince, VA3VF
>>> _
>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>> 
>> _
>> 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: Top Band and JT65

[Glenn Wyant]

If an amateur has interest in  psk, jt65 etc or EME, cw or any band
or mode; it is not for us to judge his particular interests.

VA3DX


- Original Message - 
From: 

To: 
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65


Promised myself I'd stay out of this, but it's getting 
ridiculousComments like "I worked 20 new ones on 160, and I never 
heard any of them!". Wow! That's amazing...I personally can't find any 
satisfaction in claiming a contact I never heard. I never have...Yes, 
the digi modes allow easier qso's that would never have been made, but 
let's face it, you never made those contacts, your computer & it's 
software did. Any resulting "Awards" should be made out to your 
computer. Meteor scatter used to be very popular, actually getting to 
hear the excited voices of those you worked was thrilling. One m/s qso 
of mine was with a yl from the Carolinas with a most delightful Southern 
accent...hard to duplicate with digi modes. I don't know anyone who 
works or talks about rocks anymoreno challenge. Same with eme, which 
I pulled the plug on when it was no longer a challenge. How many new eme 
operators have heard their own voices coming back from the moon?  I 
migrated to TopBand as one of the last real challenges left


I find the litany of excuses about why one has to go to digital means on 
160 to be feeble at best." My rig can't cut it, I don't have the 
antennas, I can't copy code (one of the real elephants in the room!), my 
location isn't on the coast where it's easy, etc, etc". There are MANY 
dxers operating successfully on small lots, and there are a myriad of 
clever, small receiving antennas out there. How about the gentleman on 
the left coast who worked DXCC on 160 from his mobile!! (without digital 
modes).


My TopBand rig is quite modest, no towers or rotors. The TX antennas are 
wires hanging from trees with no more than 50' vertical rise. The 16 
radials under each are only 48' long. Desperately needing a new rig, I 
bought the very cheapest HF transceiver on the market (no DSP, keyer, 
antenna tuner, etc). My location in Upper Michigan is not near either 
coast for "easy" dx, but is unfortunately close to the auroral oval. My 
amp was a non-working "gift" that doesn't run full power. However, I 
have 233 countries & 37 zones confirmed on 160. I have personally HEARD 
every qso made & have decoded them as necessary, in my HEAD. I don't 
spot myself or arrange skedsI don't have a computer in the shack.


If ham radio was to go all digital, I would walk away from itNot 
because I'm a curmudgeon, but simply because the challenge and resulting 
thrills would be gone.


Lest you think I am a ignorant technophobe, I am a degreed electrical 
engineer and have been a ham for over 60 years. I have a fine computer & 
am on it actively every daybut I never pretend that it's ham radio.


I realize from the comment below that it's rather boring to work digi 
modes, but I suspect that help is on the wayI am truly surprised 
that no one has produced an "app" that will take the remaining work out 
of it. You would simply download the app, check the appropriate boxes 
(DXCC, WAS, WAZ), select the desired bands, and turn it loose 24 hours a 
day. It would make all the contacts for you (with similar robo-stations) 
and send you a text or email when it's through. Heck, it could even 
apply for your desired awards, and then wake up your printer to print 
your award certificate out! It would then send another message to pick 
up your awardHow truly exciting that would be.


Brian K8BHZ


2017 12:39 AM, DXer wrote:

>>>To me, just not the challenge of dxing mostly cw and ssb.

Fair enough. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Another angle. I find JT65 to be a very relaxing mode. Which other 
mode allows one to read and write emails, go get a coffee, answer 
'nature's call', etc. while making contacts? Timing is important, but 
doable. :^)


73 de Vince, VA3VF
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband




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

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