On 2/19/2024 10:22 PM, n...@comcast.net wrote:
> Yes, I can earn a 80m CW DXCC, 80m PHONE DXCC, 80m DIGITAL DXCC,
What makes you say that?
I have reviewed the DXCC rules, the DXCC (paper) application, the
Online DXCC Application, and the LotW DXCC Application and in none
of them do I find
Yes, I can earn a 80m CW DXCC, 80m PHONE DXCC, 80m DIGITAL DXCC,
BUT NOT 160M CW DXCC !
Whatever you call it, it is not right, not is no fair. PHONE I used my voice,
CW I used my skills, FT* YOU used your PC.
Who will be the first to claim # 300 on 160m FT*.
No shame on that!
73;s
I suspect they have multiple copies of the log in the database.
I wouldn't worry about it - as long as the total isn't zero.
Tree N6TR
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 6:55 PM Jeff via Topband
wrote:
> Update on my last post:
>
> Checked my log this morning and the same as below.
>
> Just now checked
On 2/19/2024 9:30 PM, Tree wrote:
But I do disagree with that statement. You still used your ears with
SSB.
Go back even further ... when Phone came along. Where was the
skill in phone (compared to CW)? FT8 may be the modern Phone.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 2/19/2024 9:30 PM, Tree
Update on my last post:
Checked my log this morning and the same as below.
Just now checked & now I have 3 contacts on 80 FT8.
4 days later a qso is added.
What is going on ?
Jeff ReynoldsJeff via Topband wrote:
I worked CB0ZA last Thursday evening on 80 & 160 FT8 (only once).
Agree that this is getting old.
"Go back and research the transition from AM to SSB. It’s much the same. "
But I do disagree with that statement. You still used your ears with SSB.
Tree N6TR
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 6:10 PM Cecil acuff wrote:
> FT8 is here to stay….and there will be
FT8 is here to stay….and there will be others!
Go back and research the transition from AM to SSB. It’s much the same.
Complain as you will….if you cling to CW as the only valid mode of
communications on Top Band, you will fail. You are willing to sacrifice RTTY
to FT8 just recently… in an
On 2/19/2024 4:02 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
Since what modes like FT8, JT65, and FST4 do is compensate for the
drastically added electronic noise. Using those modes today is roughly
comparable to working CW 20+ years ago. I would support the
endorsement you suggest ONLY to those QSOs made on CW after
Yeah, I suppose you could do that for "N-band DXCC" as well. It already
exists for DXCC Honor Roll tallies.
73, Mike W4EF.
On 2/19/2024 3:32 PM, Steve Harrison wrote:
On 2/19/2024 3:25 PM, Michael Tope wrote:
Since reclassifying 160 DXCC totals to exclude FT8 would be
Just my 2 cents
SSB, CW , Digital and Mixed modes is the standard for DXCC in all band, less
160m and VHF, I quite understand it for VHF. But 160m is considered an
impossible band for most of ARRL God ! or second class...
73
N4IS
JC
-Original Message-
From: Topband On Behalf Of
Jim
On 2/19/2024 3:25 PM, Michael Tope wrote:
Since reclassifying 160 DXCC totals to exclude FT8 would be terribly
unfair to those who submitted FT8 confirmations toward DXCC in good
faith, it seems like a possible solution would be to add provisions for
a CW endorsement to the 160 meter DXCC
The discussion goes on. In case one hasn't noticed we are in a solar
maximum. I work what I can when I can and get sleep unlike "Charlie Fox".
FT8 for me is a tool. If I call CQ for a few minutes on FT8 in 15
minutes I can see world wide with it's thousands of stations using PSK
Reporter the
On 2/19/2024 3:25 PM, Michael Tope wrote:
Since reclassifying 160 DXCC totals to exclude FT8 would be terribly
unfair to those who submitted FT8 confirmations toward DXCC in good
faith, it seems like a possible solution would be to add provisions
for a CW endorsement to the 160 meter DXCC award.
Since reclassifying 160 DXCC totals to exclude FT8 would be terribly
unfair to those who submitted FT8 confirmations toward DXCC in good
faith, it seems like a possible solution would be to add provisions for
a CW endorsement to the 160 meter DXCC award. If it were workable
administratively,
Yes great to see good conditions on 160m for the first time in ages !
I was only able to come on for about an hour each night (as unfortunately I
was at work both nights until 03.00Z) . . . but had about 50 NA contacts.
Roger G3YRO
_
Searchable Archives:
Yes, I know that but some might choose to operate that way, hence "robot."
RTFM and 73 in the same message. A bit of irony.
On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 03:37:56 PM MST, Joe Subich, W4TV
wrote:
On 2/19/2024 4:51 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:
> F/H is particularly bad in
On 2/19/2024 1:51 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:
Another particularly distasteful thing about FT8 is that the DX can set filters
to exclude certain callers based on signal strength, distance, country, etc.
and the callers never know it. I know there will be vehement denial of this
but I
So that the operators can exclude them.
On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 03:21:05 PM MST, WW3S
wrote:
The filters dont “exclude” callers, they do however sort them….either by
signal strength, mileage ( based on grid square) , maybe continent…..
_
Searchable
On 2/19/2024 4:51 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:
F/H is particularly bad in this regard. You can call and call and
might actually be in the queue but not know it until you go to the
kitchen for that beer and come back and see that "you" made the
contact.
If you do not want your
The filters dont “exclude” callers, they do however sort them….either by signal
strength, mileage ( based on grid square) , maybe continent…..
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 19, 2024, at 5:11 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband
> wrote:
>
> It is unreasonable to assume all FT8 QSOs are with robots,
It is unreasonable to assume all FT8 QSOs are with robots, however, many are.
Technically, some "I" (my computer) makes are made with me not in attendance.
When I can disable transmit and walk out to the kitchen to get another beer and
come back to see that my software has tuned my radio to
On 2/19/2024 1:07 PM, ok1tn wrote:
To top it all off, the expedition will not even be present on the island.
Another false belief. The difference is that only a few guys go to the
island, set up the station(s), and go back to their boat anchored
off-share. They return to the island
Not again! (Sigh)
Mike
W0BTU
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Of course, the development of technological progress is necessary and
interesting. But there is one thing. - you cannot use progress to
destroy what thousands of radio amateurs spent their lives on. Do you
understand what I'm talking about ?
---
Nick, UY0ZG
http://www.topband.in.ua
Jim
Also totally false assumptions about digital modes, including FT8. The
modes invented by Nobel laureate K1JT, and expanded on by the team
responsible for WSJT-X software, are widely used on VHF and UHF for
moonbounce with the same sort of arrays used in the past with CW,
providing about 10 dB
I'm not nervous. I'm sorry that today's hams won't experience those feelings
when gaining a new land on TB. I'm 3 countries short of 300.DXCC CW. But I'm
giving up the fight with the no-nonsense attitude towards hoby development.
To top it all off, the expedition will not even be present on the
On 2/19/2024 3:42 PM, uy0zg via Topband wrote:
>
>
>
So this is exactly where I started the topic - soon heaven will come
on earth :-
No, FT8 has provided a way to compensate for the 20 dB in increased
noise floor over the last 40 years.
I was around in the late 1970's and early 1980s
FT8 mode completely changed our great hoby. Unfortunately negative.. FT8 is
no progress. Just laziness to improve the setup of your station.
--
73 Slavek Zeler
www.lc-variable.eu
www.okdxf.eu
-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Joe Subich, W4TV
Komu: topband@contesting.com
Datum: 19. 2.
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 10:42 PM wrote:
>
>
>
> "Like it or not, FT8 has been a boon to many DXers with limited antenna
> > situations and noisy locations."
>
> So this is exactly where I started the topic - soon heaven will come on
> earth :-
> In the future, there may be no need to build
"Like it or not, FT8 has been a boon to many DXers with limited antenna
situations and noisy locations."
So this is exactly where I started the topic - soon heaven will come on
earth :-
In the future, there may be no need to build antennas at all...
So friends, we should be happy
On 2/19/2024 3:10 PM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
After, I found few QSOs with me, just checked few known call signs in
their LOG, found also same.
Unlike the official WSJTX software, some third party variations will
log a QSO every time it sends an acknowledgement (RR73) for a report.
If the
I am not sure 100% about robot, but it is very similar to what I wrote.
After, I found few QSOs with me, just checked few known call signs in their
LOG, found also same.
Sam LY5W
2024-02-19, pr 21:54, Jim Brown rašė:
> On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
> > Look's like this
On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing.
It is unreasonable to assume that all FT8 QSOs are with robots. I know
some of the very experienced CW ops who run FT8 on expeditions. WSJT-X
software makes the mode
So Rino, how do you really feel about FT8 and its cousins?
Steve, NN4T
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 19, 2024, at 12:32 PM, Salvatore Borace wrote:
>
> I want if stop comment on this reflector about qso on that shit mode,
> really not know what Is the satisfaction when your PC make this qso, so
I want if stop comment on this reflector about qso on that shit mode,
really not know what Is the satisfaction when your PC make this qso, so i
preferred lost my ears on weak cw signal.
Rino IK7JTF
_
Searchable Archives:
My CW totals are correct; FT8 are not. I've only worked them once, yet they
show two for each FT8 QSO.
On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:33:36 AM MST, Jeff via Topband
wrote:
I worked CB0ZA last Thursday evening on 80 & 160 FT8 (only once).
Checked club log 5 min after qso and
I worked CB0ZA last Thursday evening on 80 & 160 FT8 (only once).
Checked club log 5 min after qso and showed only 1 contact.
Checked again 30min later and showed 2 qsos.
This happened for both bands.
All my cw qsos showed only 1.
NE0DX
Jeff Reynolds
Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
Try to
Again provocations and insults. This ly5w has been following me
obsessively for ten years now. What does he want from me.
___
I perfectly understand the work of the robot and made a good joke about
the future :-(
---
Nick, UY0ZG
Try to check different call-signs on FT8 https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA
160, 80m their robot working very quickly :)
Sam LY5W
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 5:47 PM Steve Harrison wrote:
> Interesting... my logcheck only shows the correct one CW QSO per band.
>
> Steve, K0XP
>
> On 2/19/2024 7:27
Interesting... my logcheck only shows the correct one CW QSO per band.
Steve, K0XP
On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing.
I called them one time, when got RR73, but I am in their LOG 4 times.
BandCWFT8
160 4
Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing.
I called them one time, when got RR73, but I am in their LOG 4 times.
BandCWFT8
160 4
80 2
20 1
12 1
10 1Man, you sick, stop your comment's.
Look to other:
Callsign to check:
BandCWFT8
160 2
80 2
10 1
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024
Heaven will soon come to planet Earth. People make 6 QSOs with FT at
160. Super:
https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA
Log Search
This form allows you to check if you are "in the log". It only works for
registered Club Log users and expeditions that have uploaded their logs.
Log to search:
Hi
K1LZ appeared very early in the evening (before 21 UTC). And he was the
only USA for an hour and a half..).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3BlHayh5FA
--
Nick, UY0ZG
http://www.topband.in.ua
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
43 matches
Mail list logo
