Topband: Spurious transmissions on 1830 khz by CKTB (610 kHz)

[DXer]

>>Maybe some of our two trillion dollar aid package can be sent to 
Canada. Perhaps a mere $100,000 would let them replace their troublesome 
guy wires with commercial grade Phillystran.


This pandemic is very serious business. I would not waste any money 
uselessly. Tragically, a lot more money than we can print will be needed 
after all is said and done.


As for CKTB, being so close to the border, it's likely covered by 
international treaty. A call to the FCC may be all that is needed on 
your side.



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

Topband: Last comment.

[DXer]

I'll not ask to see a scan of the card because that may not be 
conclusive and it's not my 'job' to decide, but I'm still curious to 
know the reason for a QSL card "appraisal" request if not to ask for 
credit. It simply does not 'compute' that a ham who has pursued the 
number 1 spot for so long will not want to add one more credit to his total.


After reading the "Last comment", I'm also curious as to why you are 
still pursuing this matter. The DXCC desk 'saved' you the 
'embarrassment' of being associated with a 'totally discredited' 
program. Enjoy your 'achievements', they matter to you only anyways.


"DX done the old way"? I may not have been a ham as long as you, but 
I've seen, read, and heard enough about some of the 'old ways'.


All the best.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

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

Re: Topband: DXCC Committee.

[DXer]

On 2020-03-23 17:45, George Dubovsky wrote:


Perhaps you never heard of P5RS7. I've got a card.


Yes, I did.

The term "Slim" has a different meaning then. To me, the "Slim" is the 
'funny' guy that answers the deserving pretending to be the DX.


In the case you describe, it was not a "Slim" in my book. There is no 
way the DXCC Desk would disqualify people for submitting those cards. By 
the way, those cards are legit, the contact took place with the alleged 
entity, but the entity turned out to be fake.


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

Topband: DXCC Committee.

[DXer]

>>>*IF*, before LoTW came on-line, a "Slim" sent a ham a confirmation 
card, and it was found to be bogus, would that disqualify the ham from 
any future admission to the DXCC or greater club ?


This would give new meaning to the 'oldie' WFWL. I never heard of a 
"Slim" confirming a contact.


I can imagine the 'joy' of fooling the deserving into thinking they 
contacted the DX, but I cannot imagine the trouble the "Slim" would go 
through to fake a QSL card. It's easier now, but we are talking prior to 
LoTW.


Not only that, but to keep checking the DXCC listings to see if the 
deserving was disqualified?! We're truly talking about psychiatric ward 
material here.


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

Topband: DXCC Committe.

[DXer]

I was under the impression the DXCC desk disqualified the OP for 
suspecting that a doctored card had been submitted for a bogus contact. 
I was wrong, my apologies.


There is no reason to disqualify a 'supplicant' simply for submitting a 
"mildly damaged" card.




I'm waiting for the posting saying the disqualification should be 
reversed, as it was an infringement of the applicant's Civil Rights, the 
result of an unauthorized DXCC desk 'sting operation'.


The best guidance so far was the one about contacting the DXpedition, if 
still possible, and ask for another card.


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

Topband: DXCC Committe

[DXer]

>> 2)  He did not submit a signed application but only asked for an 
opinion about the card.


Why was an opinion needed? It was a DXCC accepted activation, was it not?

Perhaps paper confirmation should no longer be accepted. Yes, collusion 
can easy beat any LoTW security, but it would avoid the 'messiness'.


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

Topband: DXCC Committe.

[DXer]

For some reason the classic game Jenga comes to mind.

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

Topband: Any experience with 2N3553?

[DXer]

Don,

Thank you for confirming the eBay part is not the same as the one 
sourced from Digikey/Mouser. I have a couple from eBay (at a $1 a piece 
I could not resist LOL), and a bunch from Digikey. The eBay ones will be 
discarded immediately, before I get distracted and forget about it.


I'm curious about the following:

1) Kits advertised online, but not on eBay. I don't have the link handy, 
but I remember the pictures clearly showing the same 'Motorola' part I 
purchased on ebay;


2) When one buys assembled boards on eBay. Do they use original parts or 
counterfeit ones?


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

Topband: Hi Z amplifiers for 160m

[DXer]

>>The design already has a 20 kA gas discharge tube and DC biased diode 
limiter for lightning and surge protection. It also has an optional (by 
internal link) diode limiter on the output so that it can be used by 
"weak" SDR receivers such as the SDRPlay RSP series that cannot take 
high RF levels.


I like the fact that you include this protection in a lot of your 
products. I use one of your receiver multicouplers to feed my SWL SDRs. 
The SWL antenna is only 3 or 4 ft from the ham antenna. No problems 
whatsoever.


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

Topband: Hi Z amplifiers for 160m

[DXer]

>>>Mouser 601- 25-7630  or  601-25-7660

Thank you very much, Lee. My last Mouser order arrived...today!

On the list for the next order. LOL

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

Topband: Hi Z amplifiers for 160m

[DXer]

>>>Recently I've been asked by a radio contest group to see if I can 
redesign the YCCC Hi Z amplifier using modern components and using 
similar mounting arrangements to our Loop Antenna Amplifier.


Hi Chris,

Any updates on the loop antenna amplifier revisions you were working on 
a couple of weeks ago?


I check the CCW list regularly, but saw nothing there.

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

Topband: Hi Z amplifiers for 160m

[DXer]

>>>Use an F connector (a high quality one that can be torqued.)

Can you point to a place that sells them. I became a 'fan' of F 
termination, but have recently had second thoughts because of the 
bulkhead connector's quality.


Thanks and 73.

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

Topband: RBN and cluster spots.

[DXer]

>>I can't even see how you configure RBN to only show signals from certain
areas (like NA), so I have to put up with all the EU spots on RBN (which 
I'm not interested in)


This is a 'limitation' with a lot of clusters, including RBN, AFAIK.

Not sure whether they are the only, or even the best way, but as far as 
I tried, the VE7CC client and DXLabs SpotCollector allow a lot of 
granularity in spot filtering.


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

Topband: Remote receiver deafness. Was: New Modes, Systems, etc

[DXer]

Some actual data from my 'deaf' receiver.

WSPR on 2200M:

2020-01-02 03:12 	 K5DNL 	 0.137491 	 -21 	 -1 	 EM15lj 	 5 	 VA3VF 	 
FN25 	 2163 	 52
 2019-12-31 03:16 	 NO3M 	 0.137520 	 -24 	 0 	 EN91wr 	 1 	 VA3VF 	 
FN25 	 584 	 43
 2019-12-31 03:14 	 N1BUG 	 0.137438 	 -8 	 0 	 FN55mf 	 1 	 VA3VF 	 
FN25 	 476 	 276
 2019-12-31 03:14 	 K3MF 	 0.137406 	 -9 	 0 	 FM19sr 	 1 	 VA3VF 	 
FN25 	 650 	 10
 2019-12-31 03:08 	 N1BUG 	 0.137438 	 -9 	 0 	 FN55mf 	 1 	 VA3VF 	 
FN25 	 476 	 276
 2019-12-31 03:06 	 K3MF 	 0.137406 	 -9 	 0 	 FM19sr 	 1 	 VA3VF 	 
FN25 	 650 	 10
 2019-12-31 03:04 	 NO3M 	 0.137520 	 -18 	 0 	 EN91wr 	 1 	 VA3VF 	 
FN25 	 584 	 43
 2019-12-31 03:02 	 N1BUG 	 0.137438 	 -13 	 0 	 FN55mf 	 1 	 VA3VF 	 
FN25 	 476 	 276
 2019-12-31 03:02 	 N3FL 	 0.137550 	 -31 	 0 	 FM19ua 	 0.05 	 VA3VF 	 
FN25 	 725 	 8


Formatting is making it harder to see, but N3FL 50 mW signal was 
received from a distance of 725 km.


K5DNL's 5W signal from 2163 km.


WSPR on 600M:

2020-01-09 00:08 	 AE2EA 	 0.475760 	 -16 	 0 	 FN12fr 	 0.2 	 VA3VF 	 
FN25 	 365 	 32
 2020-01-09 00:00 	 WD8DAS 	 0.475719 	 -27 	 0 	 EN52hx 	 1 	 VA3VF 	 
FN25 	 1174 	 71
 2020-01-08 23:58 	 AE2EA 	 0.475760 	 -17 	 0 	 FN12fr 	 0.2 	 VA3VF 	 
FN25 	 365 	 32
 2020-01-08 23:54 	 W7XU 	 0.475670 	 -25 	 0 	 EN13lm 	 5 	 VA3VF 	 
FN25 	 1753 	 75
 2020-01-08 23:54 	 G0MRF 	 0.475784 	 -20 	 0 	 IO91fr 	 5 	 VA3VF 	 
FN25 	 5216 	 293



G0MRF's 5W signal from 5216 km.

This data is freely available on wsprnet.org.

My Mini-Whip is literally a 10 cm wire soldered to the pre-amp board. 
It's an active antenna. These Mini-Whips can be purchased on eBay for as 
little as $15 without enclosure, a bit more with it, and that includes 
shipping. :^)


Obviously for CW, power will have to be higher, but most Topbanders use 
more than 5 Watts anyways.


The point again is, if the remote receiver is in the 'area', it does not 
take much, and with the proliferation of remote receivers, one is always 
bound to be in the 'area' of interest.


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

Topband: Remote receiver deafness. Was: New Modes, Systems, etc

[DXer]

I had private correspondence about this, so here is additional information.

Some of these remote receivers do have 'bad' antennas, others not so. 
For 'local' reception, one does not need much.


I have an AirSpy HF+ SDR with a 'bad' Mini-Whip antenna in the backyard, 
at only 4 meters above the ground. It's performance is good enough to 
receive LW broadcasting stations from Europe, and North Africa. But they 
use MegaWatts, you say? Fair enough, but it's around 200 kHz.


Enough MW stations in North America, located from 500-1000 km from my 
place. But they use KiloWatts, you say? Not all of them, lots of so 
called graveyard stations run much less than 1 kW, and the MW band is 
from 520 to 1,720 kHz.


Navtex on 518 kHz, using around 1 kW of power. Finally, NDBs. These can 
use as little as 25 Watts from 120 to 300 kHz.


These remote receivers are a problem for the integrity of the hobby, 
regardless of the antenna used.


Funny enough, they are not 'automatically' good for cheating with FT8, 
due to latency issues, unless the SDR is a Perseus, but most aren't. 
They are usually Kiwi, AirSpy, RTL-SDR.


73 de Vince, VA3VF

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

Topband: New Modes, Systems, etc

[DXer]

>>>Those are exactly those deaf sdrs I mentioned, just useless.

This does not make any sense at all!!!

If the receiver is deaf, like 'door knob' deaf, fair enough, but it 
wouldn't be online. Well, you never know, hams are a 'funny' bunch after 
all. They would put a 'deaf' receiver online, and use it too. Later post 
to the Topband list that propagation was terrible. LOL


All it needs to receive is the local 'traffic'. Isn't that the reason to 
look for them in the first place?


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

Topband: New Modes, Systems, etc

[DXer]

This is likely the only thing we agree on on this thread. The unethical 
use of remote receivers.


>>This link can be found on the Internet : https://sdr.hu/

And unfortunately, open to licensed hams only since last week. Talk 
about facilitating bad pratices! SWLs were shut out, even though they 
are likely the main 'providers' of those remote receivers.


I said in another venue, where this was also being discussed, that it 
should be the other way around.


It always boils down to the following: If you use/like it it's hamradio, 
if you don't (for whatever reason) it's not.


Look at DXpeditions. For those that did not succeed, it was the worst 
DXped of the year. For the others, the best.


Any 'greater than 2 cells brain' ham can see the irony.

Deal with this problem before haranguing those using legal modes ethically!

Vince, VA3VF



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

Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[DXer]

>>I  thought  there  was a contest  version  of  FT-8  coming
out  soon ?   I  forget  what  it  was to  be  labeled  as.

The current version of WSJT-X supports the following contests:

NA VHF Contest;
EU VHF Contest;
ARRL Field Day, technically not a contest;
RTTY Roundup.

To activate contesting 'mode', click on File -> Settings -> Advance tab 
-> Check the Special operating activity box -> select the contest.


I'll let others with more FT8 contesting experience 'chime in', but the 
easist way to implement the Topband FT8 Contest would be to use the same 
exchange as the RU. Anything different than what is currently supported 
would require programming additions to the WSJT-X code.


JTDX does not support contests. MSHV may not support them either, but 
I'm not sure.


I won't mention WSJT-Z for obvious reasons. LOL

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

Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband.

[DXer]

>>1) you need a modern(relatively new)station

How modern? Until getting an IC-7300 I used an IC-718. Before getting a 
Signalink USB interface to go with it, I used dubbing cables between the 
radio and the computer. Took some 'skill' not to TX garbage with that setup.


Don't tell me now that FT8 must be compatible with a coherer detector to 
be an 'accepted' mode.


Technological change is inevitable, to use the fact that a 20/30/40 year 
old radio is not 'fit for use' with the new mode, somehow blemishes the 
mode, is ridiculous.


>>6) you like to be bored by doing ham radio

No comment...except that it looks like you have not explored all that 
people do in hamradio. The stuff I don't like, I don't get involved, 
including crashing discussions on topics I don't care.


I won't enumerate the stuff I think it's boring in the hobby, because it 
surely is fun to the 'practioners' of those activities.


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

Topband: New Group for Topband Digital.

[DXer]

It's unfortunate that it has come to this, but I commend your initiative.

That said, you can bet money that some of the same critics will join the 
new list to stir the pot there as well.


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

Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband.

[DXer]

The FT8 comet is back:

1) It's still legal;
2) It's still not mandatory to use it;
3) It only 'wastes' up to 3kHz on each band;
4) Lots of people are having fun with it.
.
.
.

I can think of so many of Yoga Bera's sayings to reply to the negative 
reactions.


As for an FT8 contest, they are there already. I thought about it, I 
tried it a couple of times, and went back to normal and F&H FT8.


I still think that a mode that relies on time sync is not a good fit for 
contests. For that, RTTY is still king.


73 de Vince, VA3VF


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

Topband: Possible 160m propagation indicator: lightningmaps.org?

[DXer]

Quiet conditions here as well. Contacts using JT9 are happening on 600M.

Will monitor 160M. RX only. TX on Topband next year, if all goes well.

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

Topband: Possible 160m propagation indicator: lightningmaps.org?

[DXer]

Mike,

Thank you for the post, very timely for me.

I have been exploring the VLF and LF spectrum (RX only) for a few weeks 
now, after spending some time and money acquiring the capability.


As far as hamradio goes, there is life in the 2200 and 600M bands.

Regarding lightning strikes and their effects, yesterday was an 
interesting day. Keeping in mind this is all news to me, I was surprised 
to see the number of 'hits' on my SDR waterfall. It was like every 10-15 
seconds or so. The SDR would go into clipping for the duration.


This went on for a few hours, nothing was being decoded, and then quiet. 
G0MRF in the UK, and other NA stations, showed up again on the monitor a 
few minutes later on 600M. I did not check 160M, will do next time.


I did not see any mention of yesterday's condition on the VLF list 
though. There are ongoing attempts on 8.270 kHz and less frequently on 
1.65 kHz. Fascinating stuff.


Thank you for the links.

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

Topband: No comments.

[DXer]

41/51 dB...and some say propagation is bad right now.

This makes changing 17M QSLs to 160M so primitive. LOL

The sad part is that it'll only get worse.

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

Topband: KV4FZ FT8

[DXer]

>>>Decoded at 2216z  3:16pm Local time here in Colorado.  Crazy!

A remote TX in the CONUS?

For the humour impaired: It was a joke.

160, but 80 also, seem to be on fire lately.

HNY to all!

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

Topband: Wire size at base of 160M inverted L

[DXer]

Pete,

See the table at the following link:

http://www.ohmslawcalculator.com/awg-wire-chart

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

Topband: DX conditions and activity.

[DXer]

Hi Steve,

>>73, es lets hope the great conditions persist!

Sure, but you worked hard for it. The station you built is the enabler, 
more than the conditions, I think.


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

Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160.

[DXer]

Frank,

>>I have no plans to replace my 30,000 feet of radials...

I'm a 'metric' guy. If my faltering brain is still functional, this is 
close to 10 km. All for a 160M antenna?


I just placed an order for 200 ft of wire. Even with the 50% off 
special, I cannot imagine the 'bill' for 30,000 ft. And if I could 
afford it, my 30x15 ft backyard would make it a little trickier to 
deploy. LOL


Found a YouTube video from 2017:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y55UvFEd0dk

I'm hoping to complete my 80M DXCC this winter. If that happens, Topband 
will be my top priority for next winter. Reading all I can find about 
compromise Topband antennas. :^(


Last but not least, even if 7 months have elapsed already, it was great 
meeting you in Dayton/Xenia last May. No, you won't remember me, but 
that's OK. LOL



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

Topband: Measuring Common Mode Chokes.

[DXer]

Very interested in this discussion, as I embark on my common mode choke 
'journey'.


Got the toroids, and a NanoVNA.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

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

Topband: Propagation (VY0).

[DXer]

>>How about VY0ERC? They are on the radio a lot.

My guess as well. VY0ERC was very active last week on other bands that I 
monitored.


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

Topband: Was: COSMIC RAY UPDATE

[DXer]

>>One good thing about this is that my TV time has gone to almost zero...

Are TVs still available? All I have is a 50" Netflix display. The family 
says it should also 'receive' Amazon Prime. LOL



>>"When we were young, we tried to sneak out of the house to go to a 
party. These days, we try to sneak out of a party to go to the house!"


One good thing about aging is that I'm very 'good in bed' now. I'm sound 
asleep in a few minutes. LOL


To make this post ham related, I spent a small 'fortune' on ferrites. A 
good selection of FT240-31/43/61/N30 and the big mix 31 clamp on type. 
Some binocular cores for galvanic isolators, etc.


I'll be busy this winter experimenting with this stuff. A couple have 
already been deployed, and the improvements were worth it.


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

Topband: G3YRO 160m Receiving Loop

[DXer]

Hello,

>> http://www.crosscountrywireless.net/loop_antenna_amplifier.htm

I was about to purchase this new antenna, when I saw a YouTube video 
showing it in comparison to the Wellbrook 1530LN, the Bonito ML200, and 
the el-cheapo ebay MLA-30.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRhDHHpLoaM&feature=emb_logo

For fun, and for the price, I went with the El-cheapo ebay loop. I have 
not installed it yet, just mentioning its existence. The cost is around 
$35 shipped. I know... what can one expect for this kind of money, but 
it's still fun to try.


I have the Cross-Country Wireless Multicoupler, a very good buy in my 
opinion.


http://www.crosscountrywireless.net/multicoupler.htm

73 de Vince, VA3VF

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

Re: Topband: FT-8 My Recent Experience

[DXer]

Really sad to see that this 'comet' is already back in Topband 'orbit'.

Do we have new list members, by any chance? People that are 
hearing/reading about FT8 on topband for the first time?


Nobody went to Dayton last week? What about the Topband Dinner? I was 
there, and FT8 was not an issue.


I must have missed the 'multitude' of posts about the Hamvention.

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

Topband: FT8 vs other modes - my numbers.

[DXer]

Tim,

You wrote in your reply to Mike, W0MU:

>...you are buying into a myth that both supporters and detractors of 
FT8 perpetuate. The myth that FT8 is superior for DX'ing, to other modes.


With all due respect, I think you are 'buying' into the 'red herring' 
that some are using to 'bad mouth' the mode.


Skilled operators like you, operators with above average stations, will 
not benefit from FT8 as much, at least on HF.


I think Jeff, AC0C summarized it best when he wrote:

>Add in the poor prop conditions and lousy antenna situations and you 
have a handy way to up the odds of a DX contact for the average Joe Ham. 
 And the average Joe Ham on FT8 (my guess) is more likely a SSB op 
where the compare is more impressive than the CW-VS FT8 meaning that 
coming from SSB, FT8 gives a pretty big relative improvement in working 
the weak ones.


I am the Joe Ham! I don't claim to be as skilled as you and others, and 
I don't have a very good station. The limitation is mostly 'logistical', 
but also financial. In addition to those, my radio time is limited. I, 
Joe Ham, am the main beneficiary of the mode.


The hatred you see around is not because skilled operators, with well 
equipped stations, are/are not benefiting from FT8. It's because Joe Ham 
has a chance to work a few of the difficult entities they had to sweat 
blood and tears to work just a couple of years ago.


I'll not get into the 'instant gratification-no hard work' thing, 
another silliness being 'advanced' by detractors.


For you, and others in a similar situation, FT8 will be useful only when 
the DX will not work, or not work enough, SSB/CW/RTTY, but you figured 
that one out already.


Regards,

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

Topband: On FT8, noise bandwidths, filters, and signal vs noise.

[DXer]

Tim,

I'm a QLF CW operator. Yes, that bad. :^)

What you described below is exactly what I go through during a contest. 
Unless I switch back and forth between narrow and wide, I cannot listen 
for very long on narrow.


For the wider Topband audience:

Set the BW to 3 kHz, this is how wide the FT8 segments are in practice.

As for AGC, for reasons that I still cannot explain, the IC-7300 seems 
to perform better with AGC-F set to 0.1 seconds.


For programs, try JTDX. It does have a number of enhancements that are 
worth trying, such AGC compensation for transceivers that won't switch 
the AGF OFF. Filters, both signal, messages, areas, etc.


73 de Vince, VA3VF

===
The psychoacoustics of listening to narrow bandwidths for extended periods
leads to a lot of these preferences. There's an "acoustical paranoia" that
sets in if you listen to noise too long with a narrow bandwidth and don't
change things up (bandwidth, center frequency, something!) at least
occasionally. When you find yourself in that paranoia it seems like the
signal you are trying to hear is exactly the same shape and bandwidth of
your narrow filter.

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

Topband: Observations on a base-loaded 70 ft vertical.

[DXer]

Hi Jim,

Beautifully done. A work of art.

73 de Vince, VA3VF


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

Topband: Even thought this never works...

[DXer]

Tree and Mike,

With all due respect. Has anybody crossed the line? Any personal 
attacks? This is an issue relevant to Topband. If it's not discussed 
here, where will it be?


Has the list turned into something like a major TV station newscast, 
where only catch phrases and punch lines, lasting less than 5 seconds, 
can be aired.


Yes, I got the hint, finally.

Thank you for your attention.

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

Re: Topband: WebSDR Cheating.

[DXer]

How would you convince the owner to add a 5 second pause. We are not
dealing with ham operated remote receivers necessarily. Peer pressure may
work on a ham, but on other people, it would be limitation of that person's
freedom. Receiving capabilities are not regulated anywhere, outside of
dictatorships.

And in the unlikely event that a non ham agrees to it, who pays for the
upgrade, if costs are involved.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:23 PM, terry burge  wrote:

> Someone suggested a 5 second pause on the webSDR. I think that would be a
> reasonable thing to do and let people know when someone is using a relays
> station. Also, could help when using the webSDR to check the audio of your
> signal. Useful even. Can a delay be put into these unit?
>
> Terry
>
> KI7M
>
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: cheating

[DXer]

I may be missing something here. The way I interpret the excerpt below is
that it's ok to use remote stations, within the same DXCC entity or outside
of it. 'Station' here meaning TX and RX together, or up to 500 meters apart.

I would add that the remote, in addition to being legally licensed, must be
properly identified, if outside of the operator's country. Ex.: A remote in
Italy operated by a US ham, must identify itself with an Italian callsign.

I think b) is covering the case we are discussing at the moment. TX in
India, RX somewhere in the US. And why is that important, because
conditions, for better of for worse, must impact/affect both TX and RX.

As I said yesterday, the 'within the same DXCC entity' is unfair, unless
all entities were the same in size. Let's not get into the geographic
location. We all know that is a factor to.

73 de Vince, VA3VF





===

Read:  http://www.arrl.org/dxcc-rules  Section I. Basic Rules, #9 ...

9.  Station Location and Boundary:

a) All stations used to make contacts for a specific DXCC award must be located
within the same DXCC entity.
b) All transmitters and receivers comprising a station used for a specific
contact must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle.
c) QSOs made with legally licensed, remotely controlled stations are allowed to
be used for DXCC credit.

The "500-meter diameter circle" rule seems odd because I can hop on a plane and
work Bouvet from Florida for DXCC credit, or remote into a station in San Diego
to work Ducie Island for DXCC credit, but can’t separate my Wisconsin
transmitter and receiver by more than 500 meters.

I think "b)" needs to be deleted, especially in light of the wide scope of "a)"
and "c)".  The noise floor in most cities has increased so much that hearing DX
is becoming impossible for the city/suburban dweller.  A shared rural SDR
Receiver located with-in the same state, or alternately within 100 KM, would
seems to be a reasonable and practical solution to the RX RFI noise problem.
It would also make a great local club project if legalized by ARRL.

73

Lloyd - N9LB
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: WebSDR Cheating.

[DXer]

Perhaps one way to try and get back some control is force all websdr's
to enforce a full amateur call sign to its subscribers and then to make
the dbases available for scrutinity sothat the logs can be compared to
say the DXCC mechanisms. This is just a thought and worth chewing over
or other methods used.

Brainstorming for solutions is always a good thing. As for this particular
suggestion, I can see a couple of problems from the get go. Not meant as a
criticism, just part of an exchange of ideas.

Most WebSDRs are maintained by radio enthusiasts, not necessarily hamradio
operators. Although some of them may be MW DXers, they may not be aware of
Topband as a specialty niche.

How to force or enforce their compliance? Why would they care? Making
databases available, in a reliable and timely manner, would be even harder.

Once something, anything, is on the net, it's very hard to control. Just
look at internet crime, and how difficult it's to find and stop it,
permanently. Big issues will eventually be dealt with, but 'illegal' WebSDR
use, is another story altogether.

No, I have no idea how to deal with this problem. Short of peer pressure,
and sorry for saying this, public shaming, what else can be done?

The best approach is to 'educate' new hams. But human nature being what it
is, there will always be a 'small minority' willing to cheat.

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

Topband: WebSDR use or not.

[DXer]

I mentioned yesterday the tagline that an SWLer uses on his logs. I just
noticed that he has updated it. It now says: "All logged by my ears, on my
receiver, in real time & without the aid of a computer!"

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

Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use.

[DXer]

>>>Like Paul, I seriously doubt that Kanti is using a remote receiver.

Well... he confirmed it. Granted that it may not have been used for all
QSOs.

Based on the posted correspondence, it's clear he is not doing anything
with ill intent. It's either need, or his way of enjoying the hobby.

Other people use other techniques, like pre-arranged QSOs, perfectly
'legal', but not everybody's 'cup of tea'. There is also cross-band QSOs,
albeit these are not valid for DXCC, if I'm not mistaken. The hobby is
changing. eQSL even has an Echolink award now.

The problem is not him, but others that will hide their use of remote
receivers.

If contacting him again, ask if he is using the remote receiver on that
particular QSO. Ask also if he could try direct reception. This may well
become part of the Topband 'protocol' going forward.

There are no issues when things are done in the open, with everybody's
knowledge, if not agreement.
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: WebSDR use and other comments.

[DXer]

Like most of you, my interest in radio started with a tube 
radio/turntable combo, listening to shortwave broadcasting stations back 
in the late 60s. Unlike some of you, my SWLing interest remained after 
getting a ham license in 1980.


WebSDR has been an issue in SWLing circles for many years. While not as 
common as in the past, SWLers still pursue QSL confirmations from the 
stations they hear. Some of these receptions are being made through 
WebSDRs. Unfortunately, not all of them disclose this 'minor detail' 
when submitting reception reports to the stations.


To give you an idea of the difference of opinions regarding the use of 
WebSDRs in SWLing, one SWLer adds an interesting tagline to all his 
logs. It's something like this: "Heard with my own ears, on my own 
receiver, in real time."


The reason for the tagline, is that a number of SWLers, not only use web 
receivers, but are not even at the dials during the reception. They'll 
record entire bands (SW-MW-FM), and go through the MP3 files later, some 
sending reception reports to the stations, after the MP3s have been 
'processed'.


As cogently stated already, it's all a hobby, and each individual will 
decide what is valid or not as his/her own achievements. It only becomes 
a 'problem' when those 'achievements' are compared against others'.


As for amateur radio remotes, a lot has been said already. There seems 
to be an understanding of the proper use of remotes, things such as 
proper identification and the like.


One poster mentioned something that I don't recall seeing here before, 
but crossed my mind many times, as being an 'injustice'. That is, the 
use of a remote station within a country, regardless of the distance, as 
being valid for DXCC and/or contests.


Nothing wrong in principle, until you realize that a ham in Canada, the 
US, and other big countries, benefit a lot more from this allowance, 
than a ham in Andorra, El Salvador, or Hong Kong, for example.


It's no uncommon to see west coast hams claiming to be at a disadvantage 
compared to east coast hams. They may have a point, but it's difficult 
to equalize this perceived injustice. In the case of remote stations, I 
think the 'within national borders' criteria is flawed. A much better 
criteria would be distance based. It would not allow for border 
crossings, even if still within the allowed distance, of course.


Not trying to ressurect an old/bad discussion, but FT8 is in the 
'news'again. Full automation has been achieved through the use of 
macros. Only one more development to sow disagreement in the ham 
fraternity.


The hobby is changing. There are more ways to enjoy it. We may not like 
all of them, but we must find a way to coexist.


73 de Vince, VA3VF



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

Re: Topband: FT8 discussion

[DXer]

With a 1 minute cycle, where only 46 seconds of it is payload, like in JT65
and JT9, a CW id is possible, and indeed available, to those that want to
activate it.

Not feasible with a 15 seconds cycle where 13 seconds is payload. If CW id
becomes mandatory, it may be the end of FT8, to the delight of some of you.
:^)

But then something worse may show up.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Rob Atkinson  wrote:

> Ironically, an
> automatic fast CW ID at the end of each transmission would be easy to
> encode in a computer and implement, and it would not be disruptive
> since the transmission is ending anyway.  It's time for FCC to
> reinstate the CW ID requirement.  Until then, my default is to assume
> any emission I cannot identify, to be either an intruder, or noise
> from an appliance and carry on accordingly.
>
> 73
>
> Rob
> K5UJ
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM

[DXer]

I respect your right to enjoy not enjoying FT8, or any other mode for that
matter. I'll side with you every time this right is challenged.

Bottom line is, nature hates vacuum. If a section of a band is not used
most of the time, it may be 'adopted' by another SIG. There is strength in
numbers, and the numbers right now seem to be with FT8. Is it another fad?
Time will tell.

As for where the FT8 segment should be, that has changed a few times on
certain bands, but you must make your views known where the FT8 crowd is
likely to be discussing this. Leave the bad attitude behind, join the WSJT
Yahoogroups list, and be part of the solution. The FT8 'crowd' is not
likely to be following the Topband reflector.

K1JT did not dictate the frequencies, he may have made suggestions, like
many others, that was all. The mode is less than 6 months old. Things can,
and will continue to evolve/change. Let's make sure it always
evolves/changes for the better.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:05 AM, Ed Sawyer  wrote:

> The more I hear and learn about FT8, the more amazingly bad this mode
> sounds.
>
> There is a simple way to solve the 1840 problem.  Just "update the app" to
> default to 1980 and the whole 2.5khz crowd will move up there.  Amazingly,
> most won't even know they moved, they will just wonder why their 160M
> antenna "isn't working the way it used to".  But then hit the tuner button
> and call it a day.
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM? :^)

[DXer]

>>No one 'owns" a band segment on 160M under what is a VOLUNTARY 
>>BANDPLAN - and the band segments do "flex" in contests when there is 
>>so much activity to warrant the overlap that naturally occurs.


The concept described above may have worked from time immemorial, up to, 
and excluding, the creation of FT8/JT65/FT9.


FT8, and other yet to be developed modes, require a different approach 
to band planning.


For lack of a better term, FT8 is a contained mode, meaning, the 
software establishes a 2-2.5 kHz container. All activity occurs within 
this container. Outside of it there is no activity, no 'D/QRM', to use 
the malicious lingo adopted so far in this discussion.


It's easy for an SSB or CW operator to move a few kHz away, and still 
make contacts, not so with FT8.


If each individual FT8 user was to QSY in the same manner as a CW user, 
he/she may in reality be moving 2-2.5 kHz at the time. Multiply this by 
many users, and the CW frequencies that you 'own' will be gone.


Gentlemen, are you sure you want this to happen? Instead of a single 
2-2.5 kHz FT8 segment, you may end up with multiples segments.


The 20M FT8 segment is already over populated. People are already 
talking about expanding below and above the establised segment. If the 
popularity of the mode is sustained, or grows further, you may have a 
much bigger issue in your hands. Better start introducing lots of new CW 
users to protect 'your' frequencies.


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

Re: Topband: A way to keep old school modes vibrant alongside FT-8

[DXer]

Hi Steve,

Thank you for your email.

There are many real and/or perceived unfair situations in hamradio. I 
don't think this issue can be resolved without 'upsetting' one group or 
another.


The successful SSB operator will continue to 'shine' in the DXCC Phone 
section. The CW in the CW section. Mixed is, well, mixed, by definition 
it includes everything, good or bad. Digital, FT8 is digital, the 
'fruit' of advancing technology. Like in every aspect of life, new 
developments are not always well received. Jobs are lost in the real 
world because of new technology. Not surprisingly, it causes 
'disconfort' in a hobby.


Now a mea culpa, and apology. In my earlier reads of the paragraph I 
quoted from your message, I read 'new age' not 'new wave'. 'New age' 
sometimes can mean: lunatic, snake oil merchant, etc. This is why I 
questioned your suggestion. Again, my apologies. We may still have 
different opinions on this topic, but you were not implying what I 
thought it was.


Apologies to the group for replying to all. Because of the apology part, 
I feel it has to be posted in the same place where my questioning was 
posted.


73 de Vince, VA3VF



On 2017-10-28 5:17 AM, Steve Ireland wrote:

Hi Vince
Definitely  not - I was being dead serious (but, as I'm Australian, 
interspersing what I said with attempts at humour).
The part of the post I made from which you made the extract is about the 
ARRL getting its DXCC awards program updated to match the emergence and 
fast growing popularity of the inaudible digital modes, which have a 
huge communications advantage (10 to 15dB) over CW, SSB and the older 
digital modes such as RTTY and PSK31.
We have an 'apples and oranges' situation here and the best way to keep 
the peace between people who use traditional audible modes and those 
that have embraced the new inaudible digital technology is to have 
separate DXCC awards.
Put yourself in the place of someone who has spent 40 years getting 300 
countries on topband SSB/CW. Being considered in the same category as 
someone who is using inaudible new wave digital modes to potentially 
achieve the same total is unlikely to endear the former to the latter!
For the sake of 'peace in our time', let's get separate DXCC categories. 
Dinghy or yacht sail boats don't compete in the same race categories as 
motor boats - and this is the situation we currently have.
By the way, it is not that I don't enjoy FT-8 - as my first email said, 
I like be able to decipher radio signals using my ears - which is why 
I've never used RTTY, AMTOR, Packet Radio and any WSJT modes including 
FT-8.
I did used PSK31 a few times on 20m when it first came along because it 
was an interesting technical challenge to do so, but then lost interest. 
As the beat poets used to say, "it's just not my bag."

Vy 73
Steve, VK6VZ
---
Not sure of to think of this. Was it another veiled dig at a mode you don't
enjoy?
A way forward to keep 'old school' modes
vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)
73 de Vince, VA3VF
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Steve Ireland  wrote:
 >
 > 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. ;-)
 >
 >
 >
 > Vy 73
 >
 > Steve, VK6VZ/G3ZZD

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

Re: Topband: More on radials

[DXer]

Hi Gary,

This is the first time I hear about the DOG. Would you have online
references about it?

I'll Google it, but if you have goods ones handy, please send them to me
privately (unless others here are interested as well).

Thanks and 73.

Vince, VA3VF

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:00 AM, kd9sv  wrote:

> About 20 years ago I did the DOG (dipole on ground) experiment) at my
> northern Indiana location.  Many others have likely done their own DOG
> tests
> but my results were that the dipole needed to be shortened by nearly 50% to
> still be resonant when lying on the grassy soil at this location.  Based on
> this data and wanting something that worked well I installed 1/4 wave
> radials for 80 meters AND also 1/4 wave for 160 meters.  I figured if the
> short ones don't get you then the long ones will. FWIW, YMMV, de gary,
> kd9sv
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: subject

[DXer]

I agree! This thread about asking the moderator to stop the other thread
has run its course.

I hope we won't have a thread now asking for the thread that asked for the
other thread to be terminated started.

Enjoy the nice discussion about radials.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:22 AM, MICHAEL ST ANGELO 
wrote:

>
>
> I agree! This cow is dry.
>
> The problem is not the type of mode but the internet. We're spending too
> much time ragchewing on these groups instead of tickling the ether.
>
> Turn on your radio and give a call. You don't need a contest or
> DX'pedition to operate.
>
> Mike N2MS
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Donald Moth via Topband
> > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 3:44 PM
> > To: topband@contesting.com
> > Subject: Topband: subject
> >
> > Isn't it about time to move on from FT8 to other things like DX and who
> is
> > hearing who at what time and strength. on CW or SSB. We've milked this
> to an
> > end. Only my own openion
> > Don W2MPK
> > _
> > 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: FT8: Making it too easy?

[DXer]

A remote they did not build, but can be used for free is ok? :^)

That's like going to a friend's house to work the DX from there, perfectly
'legal', but not something that attracts me.

Let's not add any more variables. It's 'complicated' enough with all the
narcissism going around.

This is a great hobby, enjoy it!!!

73 de Vince, VA3VF


On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Mark K3MSB  wrote:

> Only if they used a credit card and a remote station that they didn't
> build!
>
> 73 Mark K3MSB
>
> On Oct 26, 2017 2:28 PM, "DXer"  wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> So, if I use the same 'rational' some people here seems to use, those DXCC
> awards earned with full legal power, multiple towers, beams, and amps,
> should really be a mark of shame on their holders?  :^)
>
> There is no one way, your way, yes, but not only one way.
>
> 73 de Vince, VA3VF
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8: Making it too easy?

[DXer]

Hi Mark,

So, if I use the same 'rational' some people here seems to use, those DXCC
awards earned with full legal power, multiple towers, beams, and amps,
should really be a mark of shame on their holders?  :^)

There is no one way, your way, yes, but not only one way.

73 de Vince, VA3VF



On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Mark K3MSB  wrote:

> Hi Vince
>
> Well, you could use a machine gun instead of a bow and arrow to bag the
> “big one” and hang it’s head on the wall,  but it wouldn’t be quite the
> same, now would it?
>
> What’s the difference in rolling up to the ice-cream hop in your 1962
> Coupe DeVille convertible that you just cut a check for,  or rolling up in
> one that you’ve spent years restoring?
>
> I think that pretty much answers your question.
>
> 73 Mark K3MSB
>
>
>
> On Oct 26, 2017 1:45 PM, "DXer"  wrote:
>
>> For those that say FT8 makes it too easy to win awards, climb the DXCC
>> ladder, or make it into the HR.
>>
>> May I ask what the reason is for going to the trouble, and expense, of
>> purchasing the best transceivers, installing towers, beams, and amps?
>>
>> How is your operating enhanced, if not by making it easier to 'bag' that
>> difficult entity?
>>
>> Wouldn't a DXCC award be more valuable if earned with a galena receiver,
>> and an indoor random wire?
>>
>> 73 de Vince, VA3VF
>> _
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: FT8: Making it too easy?

[DXer]

For those that say FT8 makes it too easy to win awards, climb the DXCC
ladder, or make it into the HR.

May I ask what the reason is for going to the trouble, and expense, of
purchasing the best transceivers, installing towers, beams, and amps?

How is your operating enhanced, if not by making it easier to 'bag' that
difficult entity?

Wouldn't a DXCC award be more valuable if earned with a galena receiver,
and an indoor random wire?

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

Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)

[DXer]

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 Fatchett  wrote:

>
> 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)

[DXer]

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 - K1NZ  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
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: Fwd: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)

[DXer]

Not sure of to think of this. Was it another veiled dig at a mode you don't
enjoy?

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Steve Ireland  wrote:

>
> 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. ;-)
>
>
>
> Vy 73
>
> Steve, VK6VZ/G3ZZD
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8.

[DXer]

Thanks, JC.

Fair enough. I'm not a fan of SSTV. It's not watching paint dry, but
watching the picture being painted. After monitoring the mode for a few
days, I did not understand what some of the pictures had to do with the
hobby.

I'm not a fan of APRS. Somehow I don't understand the kick some people get
at being tracked like a wild animal. Emergency use aside!

Bottom line is, use what you like, no reason to disparage (you did not do
that, just to be clear) modes that other people enjoy. Even when, in the
case of the SSTV pictures I saw, there is a clear deviation of purpose.

Again, my opinion only. SSTV and APRS away.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:15 PM, JC  wrote:

> Hi Vince , just answering some of your questions for technical reasons, I
> see all innovation as good for the hobby.
>
> I don't like RTTY either, I made only one QSO since 1969.
>
> 73's
> JC
> N4IS
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8.

[DXer]

"What concerns me is the fact that the technical level of the new ham is
declining too fast. There is the feeling that "GOOGLE" can explain 
everything..."


That's an important point, but Google is not necessarily a bad thing, 
laziness is. The problem is that some people won't even put an effort 
into googling for an answer.


When FT8 RC2 came out, and depending on the version you were running 
before installing it, it was necessary to reset the frequency list, or 
it would be mangled.


I could not believe the number of people reporting this issue on the 
WSJT list, and asking for the solution, when all they had to do was read 
the previous messages. It had been asked, and answered, at least 10 or 
15 times in the previous 24 hours. The same thing was happening on eHam.


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

Re: Topband: FT8.

[DXer]

On 2017-10-25 10:08 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
>   It makes one contact maybe.

Correct... so what's the problem again about no human intervention? QSO 
machines?




I am sure that programs could be written or exist to make rtty contacts 
more automated.


W0MU


Yes, but it has not happened yet, on a large/noticeable scale. If and 
when that happens, I'll be the first to say FT8 zombie bots roaming the 
bands are bad .






On 10/25/2017 7:57 PM, DXer wrote:


That's one way to enjoy RTTY. Others use GRITTY.

Try leaving FT8 unattended, and see how many QSOs it makes by itself?

73 de Vince, VA3VF

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

Re: Topband: FT8.

[DXer]

Fundamentally speaking, radio is RF between two antennas. Whatever is 
'pumped' into the TX antenna and 'pulled' out of the RX antenna, is not 
radio, it's payload.


To say FT8 is not amateur radio is incorrect.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

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

Re: Topband: FT8.

[DXer]

"Additionally, traditional RTTY is still a "hear it" mode.   I actually 
listen to the tones and while obviously I can't decode them by ear, I 
can certainly tune them by ear.  Furthermore, MMTTY, which I use, 
decodes one signal at a time, the one I tune in and respond to.  So, at 
least in my operation, I have to be there and actively engaged."


That's one way to enjoy RTTY. Others use GRITTY.

Try leaving FT8 unattended, and see how many QSOs it makes by itself?

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

Topband: FT8.

[DXer]

I'm very surprised by some of the comments here. I'm still going through 
the messages, but wanted to make a few comments already. In no 
particular order:


1) How is computer to computer FT8 different from computer to computer 
RTTY, a very popular mode among DXers and contesters?


2) CW and SSB has not been outlawed, please continue to use it.

3) For conversation only, nothing beats an unlimited cellphone plan.

4) Are you really saying that FT8 is doing less than SSB and CW in 
trying to keep the hobby alive?


5) How is FT8 point and click worse than DXCluster point and click, and 
a voice keyer screaming you last two? And in some cases the OP is not 
even hearing the DX?


6) Not everybody has the real estate, antenna, linear amplifiers, 
expensive transceivers that you may have access to. Modest stations, 20W 
out and a wire for an antenna, allow more people to have fun.


7) Are you really saying that every FT8 CQ call you make is answered by 
an ATNO, first call, no repeats, simplex? Where is the challenge?!


8) How is 3kHz (I know, 'officially' 2, but it's already moving up into 
the JT65 segment) killing the hobby?


9) Please quote the FCC rule making forcing you to use FT8 or cancel you 
ticket?


That said, FT8 is already falling victim of its own success. In my case, 
the number of incomplete QSOs is increasing, due to QRM caused by 'over 
population' in the FT8 segment.


This is all for now. Back to the messages for more 'inspiration'.

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

Topband: Some Operating Observations from JT5DX de K1ZM/VY2ZM

[DXer]

A wonderful report. Thank you very much, Jeff.

73 de Vince, VA3VF
_
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: 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: 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.

[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: 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

Re: Topband: Stone age arguments

[DXer]

Should have said he wrote this tongue in check, as the way some people 
think/see the hobby.


Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-20 5:23 PM, DXer wrote:

Roger,

There is a little discussion going on on eHam right now, about the use o
DX Clusters, and other tools. Being attached to the past, fighting
progress, etc etc ...the standard good natured 'circular arguments' we
see repeated from time to time, like a periodic comet. :^)

AA6YQ (apologies Dave, for not asking you before cross-posting here)
wrote the following about technologies and standards:

"Technologies in use before you are ~35 years of age are standards that
every ham should be using. Technologies that become available after you
are 35 years of age make things too easy, enable ignorant unskilled ops
to succeed, and destroy the hobby."

He is so right in his analysis.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-20 4:09 PM, Roger Cooke wrote:

Hi.


  I have been following this argument with some amusement. Only because
it can relate to just about any situation that we can think of.
Example 1

  I got a teleprinter in 1959 and put it on the air. I was told in no
uncertain terms that the awful jingle-bell QRM was not amateur radio and
not wanted on the bands.

   Fast forward to 2017. It's the most used data mode there is!

Example 2

  I built an SSB exciter in 1962 and was told that no way should that
duck-talk be on the amateur bands. It was not wanted and should be
banned. Look at the bands now. How many AM stations do you hear?

Example 3

   I built the TNC-1 first packet board in 1982. I was accused of QRM on
the bands ( VHF and HF ) that was not wanted and would not last.  OK, it
did get knocked out by the Internet, but so has a lot of other stuff and
it did last for a number of years culminating in me running the UK
Satgate. Yes, I was very sad at its demise.

Example 4

   A local station has been active on EME for years with his home-built
12 x 12 array of two metre yagis on a massive construction in his back
garden. Now you can do EME with JT65 and one yagi. That battle is
on-going and gets quite heated!



What will be next?  Contests? A thorny subject right now.


73 de Roger, G3LDI

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

Re: Topband: Stone age arguments

[DXer]

Roger,

There is a little discussion going on on eHam right now, about the use o 
DX Clusters, and other tools. Being attached to the past, fighting 
progress, etc etc ...the standard good natured 'circular arguments' we 
see repeated from time to time, like a periodic comet. :^)


AA6YQ (apologies Dave, for not asking you before cross-posting here) 
wrote the following about technologies and standards:


"Technologies in use before you are ~35 years of age are standards that 
every ham should be using. Technologies that become available after you 
are 35 years of age make things too easy, enable ignorant unskilled ops 
to succeed, and destroy the hobby."


He is so right in his analysis.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-20 4:09 PM, Roger Cooke wrote:

Hi.


  I have been following this argument with some amusement. Only because
it can relate to just about any situation that we can think of.
Example 1

  I got a teleprinter in 1959 and put it on the air. I was told in no
uncertain terms that the awful jingle-bell QRM was not amateur radio and
not wanted on the bands.

   Fast forward to 2017. It's the most used data mode there is!

Example 2

  I built an SSB exciter in 1962 and was told that no way should that
duck-talk be on the amateur bands. It was not wanted and should be
banned. Look at the bands now. How many AM stations do you hear?

Example 3

   I built the TNC-1 first packet board in 1982. I was accused of QRM on
the bands ( VHF and HF ) that was not wanted and would not last.  OK, it
did get knocked out by the Internet, but so has a lot of other stuff and
it did last for a number of years culminating in me running the UK
Satgate. Yes, I was very sad at its demise.

Example 4

   A local station has been active on EME for years with his home-built
12 x 12 array of two metre yagis on a massive construction in his back
garden. Now you can do EME with JT65 and one yagi. That battle is
on-going and gets quite heated!



What will be next?  Contests? A thorny subject right now.


73 de Roger, G3LDI

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

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

Rick,

The technical explanation takes into account a number of conditions. The 
details are all available on K1JT's website. If memory serves, it uses 
2.5kHz BW in the calculations. CW will have different readings depending 
on the BW used.


All I can say, as a user of the mode, is that in many instances there is 
absolutely no recoverable audio, or waterfall inprint, and you get a decode.


As for power, as I mentioned earlier, the JT modes are weak signal 
modes, not necessarily low power modes. In my case, I'm limited to 
whatever the IC-718 can safely output, which is around 30/35 watts.


With that power, and a Hustler 6BTV at ground level and no radials, I 
was being received, and worked, a number of VK stations on 40M 
yesterday. Something that is trivial for some, but a big deal for me.


73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-20 2:58 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist 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


On 5/20/2017 3:48 AM, Dale Putnam wrote:

It seems the the something worth working for would be worth striving
for. Having WAS on 160 Qrp posted on the wall always reminds me of the
effort of operating and the time spent learning about antennas that
actually work over the long haul distances required.
  Instead of taking many minutes many of the qsos were quick and snuck
in between static crashes as opposed to slow and determined.
  To each his own. Work whatever mode works for you.  Does using ssb
rather than cw change the value of the Q? Only in the eye of the
beholder. Not so much to the been there done that kinda guy.


Make this a great day
Dale


On May 19, 2017, at 10:03 PM, DXer  wrote:


WSJT-X 1.7.0


There is JTDX, based on WSJT-X, but with some additional tweaks for
the HF user.

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

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

Mike,

I'm most interested in hearing more about your conversation with K1JT 
about JT9. I've been away from the WSJTGroup for some time, and may have 
missed any new info about the mode.


In theory, JT9 should be the chosen LF mode. A couple of dBs more 
sensitve, and about 10% the BW of JT65. But the real performance, in 
real conditions, may not have followed.


JTDX is new, it's not incorporated into WSJT-X, it's a WSJT-X fork (I 
think this is the programming term) based on version 1.7 release 6462.


It does give some headaches to the WSJT-X developers, when people ask 
about JTDX in the WSJT group. There is a Yahoo group for JTDX only, and 
it should be used for support. There are enough differences between 
WSJT-X and JTDX now, that one cannot automatically transfer the 
experience of one to the other.


JTDX is also now introducing/testing a new mode called JT10.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-20 2:48 PM, Mike Waters wrote:

I haven't even listened for anything digital in several years. But I need
to share some things soon --that K1JT himself told me via email--
concerning JT65 vs JT9 on 160. To make a long story short, I'm no longer
'preaching' against using JT65 in favor of JT9, as I have been in the past.
More later; I need to ask and reply to Joe Taylor's last email first.

My main interest in JT* is *occasionally* trying to work DX when the QRN is
bad here; perhaps calling CQ using several hundred watts when there's no JT
activity in North America. I tried that once or twice 2-3 years ago when I
saw JT activity in Australia, and no reply. (Maybe a sked would be better.)

I've never heard of JTDX until today. A Google search seems to imply it's
fairly new. One person talked about having JTDX incorporated into WSJT-X,
but I didn't read it.

Personally, I am not at all interested in using digital modes for
contesting, WAS, DXCC, or anything like that.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
_
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]

Right!

When we see some of issues that are popping up now, such as remotes 
being used outside ones entity but claimed as inside, to argue about 
which mode is worthy or not, is misguided.


In addition, is not like 160 is a crowded band. :^)

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-20 1:25 PM, rick darwicki via Topband wrote:

There is no question. get them anyway you can mixed.

If you want an all CW, SSB or Digital, go for it but don't belittle guys that 
don't have 500 ft. beverages in 6 directions and full size 4 squares for 
transmitting.

I have 91 countries on topband with an S-7/8 noise level and if it takes JT to 
get the last 9, so be it, then I'll worry about picking up the others on CW 
later.
We don't hear whining that the all CW guys haven't gotten with the 21st century 
and don't know how to use modern technology, it the AM/SSB flap all over again.
Next thing you know people will start complaining "he worked him in June, not the 
REAL DXer's season" hi hi hi  Rick 
N6PE==
There are more planes in the ocean than submarines in the sky


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


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

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

>>>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

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

>>10 Watts is considered high power on the digital modes. Is using 1000 
>>Watts on 160m (+20dB) and 250Hz receive filters (+10dB) on both ends 
>>of a CW QSO more challenging than 10W on JT65 on the same link? 
>>Perhaps not.


JT modes are weak signal modes, not necessarily low power/QRP modes. The 
power needed on 160 will likely be higher than on 20, for example.

The benefit is that, mode by mode, JT can do more with less power.

The old FCC rule/reccomendation about using only the power required to 
complete de QSO still applies. :^)


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

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

JC,

>>I just don't like JT modes.

I'm way behind reading messages. Please disregard my last one. As we say 
in our mother tongue 'gosto nao se discute'. :^))


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

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

JC,

>>The digital mode is a choice, only a choice to avoid the hard work to 
>>enjoy a DX on 160m.


Amateur radio is basically about RF, not modes. Modes, beginning with 
code, were and are being added as technology permits.


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

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

>>>And MY 2 cents...the ONLY criteria for ANY ARRL (or other) awards is 
>>>very simple: If both stations AGREE they have made a QSO, then they 
>>>DID have a valid QSO...regardless how/when/mode/assist/etc is 
>>>used.There is no third-party judge required or invited...


You didn't really mean this, did you?

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

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

>>> WSJT-X 1.7.0

There is JTDX, based on WSJT-X, but with some additional tweaks for the 
HF user.


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

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

>>My question was about the feeling of doing a CW and a JT65 QSo on 
>>topband. I worked a new one on JT65 and really didn´t feel the 
>>excitement working it as I did with any new one on CW


And my question is about the feeling of doing a JT65 QSO, or nothing, on 
topband. :^)


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

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

>>>Maybe JT65 is too young to have good statistics, but how many DXCC 
>>>entities have ever been activated on JT65 on 160M?


It'll never reach the levels of SSB/CW/RTTY, if that's what you are 
getting to, for the simple reason that DXpeditions to rare places would 
be crazy to spend precious time on a 6 minutes per QSO mode, assuming 
there is no repeat.


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

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

I did JT65 on 160, but really what´s the challenge?

Is amazing when you did a CW qso, switching between RX antennas, filters
and radio adjustments to pull out a callsign

I don´t know what people than been on topband for decades feel about that

73.
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W

=
Jorge,

Is not a question of 'challenge', it's a question of being able to 
operate on 160, with a station that won't cut even on CW. The same 
applies to VHF/UHF when it comes to JT modes.


Let's not forget also that many aspiring topbanders do not operate on CW 
-not trying to create a CW yes/no thread - and CW, before the JT modes, 
was the best mode for topband.


And finally, people with hearing problems.

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

Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

>>>I cannot understand why JT9 is used so little on 160 thru 20. JT65 
>>>is a VHF mode.


Not really, there are different 'flavours' of JT65, on HF it's JT65A.

As for JT9, there reason is that JT65-HF, and its derivatives, such as 
the one maintained by HB9HQX, is still used by a substantial number of 
people. JT65-HF does not support JT9.


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

Re: Topband: Made it! 80 Years a Ham

[DXer]

Paul,

Thank YOU for this wonderful message.

Please accept my heartfelt congratulations!

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:34 AM, PAUL M ELLIOTT  wrote:

> Made it! 19 January 2017, is the 80th anniversary of my first ham license,
> Class C operating privileges with W5GGV as my call. Was 14 years old at the
> time. A little over a year later I upgraded to Class A.  Many years later
> the Extra Class (with no added privileges) came along. Upgraded. Some years
> later the FCC announced that hams with an Extra Class license who had been
> licensed 25 years could apply for a two -letter call, no place on the
> application to request of a specific call.  Was assigned W5DM.
>
> First rig made from junked Atwater Kent radio parts. First antenna was a
> wire going out a hole in the window screen to a tree.  First DX was VK2SS
> on
> 40 m CW, September 1937. (An aside. There were no phone privileges on 40 m
> for USA hams). The VK2SS QSL card is hung on my wall. My card to him was
> written on a postcard (Great Depression=no money to buy QSL cards).
>
> Been fairly active over the years, except, of course, for WW II.  If
> interested in WW II, you can do a web search on DD 792 for a small part of
> my history.
>
> The first 20 or 30 years I built my transmitters (all low powered) and
> receivers. Operated CW only until SSB came along. Then I built a low
> powered
> phasing rig. A BC-348H receiver was made dual conversion using 85 kcs  (kcs
> then= kHz now) IF transformers from a BC 453 receiver.   Had a blast
> working
> the world with a homebuilt "cubical quad" on 20 meters.  Since then mostly
> CW.
>
> I may have made one small contribution to ham radio.  In the April 1958
> issue of QST, in Technical Correspondence there was a letter from me that,
> I
> think, was the first mention in a ham publication that the formula for
> determining the length of a "cubical quad" antenna was not correct.  Since
> my measurements were made using a BC 348, a grid dip oscillator, and a 100
> kcs crystal oscillator. I don't know whether I was just lucky to get as
> close as I did or did a fairly good job with what I had.
>
> In the early 1990s started out to get 160 m WAS from a 120 x 120 foot
> electrically noisy city lot (SE NM) with a long ( ~3/8 wavelength)  but low
> semi-inverted L antenna.  Ground radials of varying length in one 90 degree
> segment. Made 160 m WAS.   Then started chasing DX.  Now have 189 countries
> confirmed on 160 m, 324 on all bands.
>
> Age, not surprisingly, has taken its toll.  CW now down to 20-25 wpm-at one
> time it was 35-40 wpm.  Finger dexterity way down-has taken me over 3 hours
> to type this email. Physical realities remain physical realities--I am now
> a
> disabled, crippled old man. But---
>
> No complaints-many people are worse off than I am.
>
> Thanks to all who have had the knowledge and the kindness to help me over
> the years.
>
> 73 Paul W5DM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: DXing on the Edge - Ordering Information for International Amateurs

[DXer]

For those in Canada, you can still order from Book Depository via the 
Amazon.ca website, and save 3 dollars. I just ordered my copy for 
CDN$24.19 shipped.


I do have a connection now, I bought my own copy, but that's all. :^))

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-01-14 1:00 PM, DXer wrote:

Another option is now available. Book Depository, which I believe
belongs to Amazon, has it for CDN$27.02/US$20.72/EUR$19.48/GBP$16.48,
including shipping worldwide.

http://www.bookdepository.com/Dxing-on-the-Edge-Jeffrey-Briggs/9781483586458


Again, no connection, just helping out.

73 de Vince, VA3VF


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

Re: Topband: DXing on the Edge - Ordering Information for International Amateurs

[DXer]

Another option is now available. Book Depository, which I believe 
belongs to Amazon, has it for CDN$27.02/US$20.72/EUR$19.48/GBP$16.48, 
including shipping worldwide.


http://www.bookdepository.com/Dxing-on-the-Edge-Jeffrey-Briggs/9781483586458

Again, no connection, just helping out.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

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

Re: Topband: Fence charger

[DXer]

K4XS wrote:

>>>Looking for a nice RFI quiet fence charger for my new pig  fence.  Any 
>>>recommendations.

W8HW replied:

>>>It is my understanding that animals learn not to touch the fence after a
hit or two so it is not likely that they will ever know the fence is shut
off for a short time. Just a question...

I don't know...Hams, I mean pigs, are smarter than you think.

But some humans are also known to learn, after a while.

Sorry...impossible to resist. LOL

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

Re: Topband: DXing on the Edge - Ordering Information for International Amateurs

[DXer]

Amazon Canada lists it for CD$27.03, but you need $35 minimum order for
free shipping now. Oh, and it says 'Usually ships within 1 to 3 months'.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:28 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett  wrote:

> Has anyone managed to snag the book at Target.com for 13.49?
>
> Amazon is currently out of stock until the 9th.  I would use DX
> Engineering but I have Prime with Amazon and free shipping.
>
> W0MU
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Radio World; Noise Floor; Where do we go from here?

[DXer]

I sense you are old fashioned, long term these days is next quarter. :^)

We're way off-topic now. Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2016-12-18 7:44 PM, Arthur Delibert wrote:

And then destroy shareholder value over the long term




*From:* Topband  on behalf of DXer

*Sent:* Sunday, December 18, 2016 7:42 PM
*To:* topband@contesting.com
*Subject:* Re: Topband: Radio World; Noise Floor; Where do we go from here?

Off-topic...This is how they realize shareholder's value quickly. :^)

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2016-12-18 7:31 PM, CJ Johnson - WT2P wrote:

How about companies stop making cheap crap to cut corners.

wt2p

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband Archives - Contesting <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: Radio World; Noise Floor; Where do we go from here?

[DXer]

Off-topic...This is how they realize shareholder's value quickly. :^)

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2016-12-18 7:31 PM, CJ Johnson - WT2P wrote:

How about companies stop making cheap crap to cut corners.

wt2p

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

Re: Topband: New Yahoogroups DX list.

[DXer]

My apologies if I was not clear enough on what I'm trying to revive.

I know about OPDX, 425 DX, DX-NL. I strongly recommend all DXers to 
subscribe to these EXCELLENT Newsletter, if not already.


There is also the DXing forum on eHam, and maybe others.

I'm talking about a discussion group, just like Topband and CQ-Contest, 
but for DX.


Forgive me moderators for another message about this. Last one!

If there is no need, or interest on a DX list, it will certainly not 
happen, and all goes back to normal. :^)


73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2016-12-10 6:17 PM, DXer wrote:

I cannot find any DX list currently active. There are websites providing
DX information, but not a mailing list per se. In case there are others
interested in the topic, I just created a DX list on Yahoogroups.

It's called DX-IS! To subscribe, send a message to:

  dxing-subscr...@yahoogroups.com

Or visit the list page:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dxing/info

If I somehow missed an active list, let me know. I'll subscribe to it,
and delete this one.

Let's see if we can get something going like in the 'good old days'.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

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

Topband: New Yahoogroups DX list.

[DXer]

I cannot find any DX list currently active. There are websites providing 
DX information, but not a mailing list per se. In case there are others 
interested in the topic, I just created a DX list on Yahoogroups.


It's called DX-IS! To subscribe, send a message to:

dxing-subscr...@yahoogroups.com

Or visit the list page:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dxing/info

If I somehow missed an active list, let me know. I'll subscribe to it, 
and delete this one.


Let's see if we can get something going like in the 'good old days'.

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

Topband: Fwd: ET7L DXCC approval

[DXer]

So...the ARRL does not care. Libertarianism at its best, nothing wrong with
that.

Point taken about this reflector not being the place for this discussion.
End of story for me. :^)

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Mike Cizek W0VTT  wrote:

> The reflector isn't the place to start a discussion of what is and what is
> not acceptable, but the League has made their decision about remote ops.
> From the DXCC rules:
>
>
>
> 11.  Issues concerning remotely controlled operating and DXCC are best
> dealt with by each individual carefully considering the ethical limits that
> he/she will accept for his/her DXCC and other operating awards.
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> It will continue to be up to the operator to decide what types of legal
> remote control operating he/she will use (if any) to contribute to an
> operating award.
>
>
>
> Naturally, I have my opinions, and will gladly share them over a few
> beers.
>
>
>
> I've been a card checker since the program started, and am happy to say
> that I have only found one case of a card being changed from 18 to 1.8
> MHz.  The guy didn't even TRY to make it look good - couldn't believe it.
>
>
>
> --
>
> 73,
>
> Mike Cizek WØVTT
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of DXer
> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 08:51
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: ET7L DXCC approval
>
>
>
> This is going to be a much bigger issue than the adultered 18M QSLs. :^)
>
>
>
> I don't know how easy it is to detect the use of a remote RX, unless a P5
>
> contact at 12 noon local time is claimed. :^))
>
>
>
> 73 de Vince, VA3VF
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Johann Bruinier 
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Another unpleasant item is the growing use of remote RXs. It's not
>
> > difficult to identify the fakers but does ARRL care?
>
> >
>
> > Seasons' Greetings & 73!
>
> >
>
> > Jan DL9KR.
>
> >
>
> _
>
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: ET7L DXCC approval

[DXer]

This is going to be a much bigger issue than the adultered 18M QSLs. :^)

I don't know how easy it is to detect the use of a remote RX, unless a P5
contact at 12 noon local time is claimed. :^))

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Johann Bruinier 
wrote:

>
> Another unpleasant item is the growing use of remote RXs. It's not
> difficult to identify the fakers but does ARRL care?
>
> Seasons' Greetings & 73!
>
> Jan DL9KR.
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: ARRL 160

[DXer]

Thanks, Mike...it's all clear now.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2016-12-05 6:18 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:

Yes you have to manually edit the Cabrillo file with notepad or similar.


On 12/5/2016 3:54 PM, DXer wrote:
If I understood this correctly, the QSO will not count for/against
you, but remains on the log for the benefit of the other station.

My question is, this line 'x'ing' must be done manually after the
contest, right?

73 de Vince, VA3VF

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

Re: Topband: ARRL 160

[DXer]

Thanks, Ken.

But if the software does it in real time, would it not be better to 
correct the error in the first place? This way it would still be 
legitimate to claim the points. Sorry if I misunderstood your message.


I use N1MM, need to check.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2016-12-05 6:08 PM, Ken K6MR wrote:

Not sure about other loggers: mine (DXLog.net) has a hotkey that marks the Q in 
real time.

> Ken K6MR

From: DXer<mailto:hfdxmoni...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2016 2:54 PM
To: topband@contesting.com<mailto:topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL 160

> If I understood this correctly, the QSO will not count for/against you,
but remains on the log for the benefit of the other station.

My question is, this line 'x'ing' must be done manually after the
contest, right?

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2016-12-05 4:46 PM, Ken K6MR wrote:

So what does X-QSO do to a log line?


Ken K6MR

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

Re: Topband: ARRL 160

[DXer]

If I understood this correctly, the QSO will not count for/against you, 
but remains on the log for the benefit of the other station.


My question is, this line 'x'ing' must be done manually after the 
contest, right?


73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2016-12-05 4:46 PM, Ken K6MR wrote:

So what does X-QSO do to a log line?



Ken K6MR





From: Tree
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2016 11:37 AM
To: Lee STRAHAN
Cc: Ward Silver; 
topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL 160



There is no way to mark a QSO as unclaimed in the Cabrillo format.

Either it is there or not.

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