Tom,
I never said putting digimodes in the middle of the weak signal area was a good
idea, but I also know that the weak signal area is violated constantly by local
station using it. By that I mean US stations talking to US stations there. To
me, personally, I considered 160 DX to mean outsid
Tom, "on point" ... I am, almost exclusively, a CW and Digi op in that
order. I will say, anecdotally, that I have not experienced any
interference caused by one or the other to the other on 160. I admit that
I am not THE most active op on 160, but I am there a fair amount of time.
Every
Tom, "on point" ... I am, almost exclusively, a CW and Digi op in that
order. I will say, anecdotally, that I have not experienced any interference
caused by one or the other to the other on 160. I admit that I am not THE most
active op on 160, but I am there a fair amount of time.
Sinc
On 9/16/2012 11:53 AM, Tom W8JI wrote:
Another part is they just may not recognize CW, or what the CW station
is doing.
You would be surprised how many old timers and experienced CW ops are
using digital modes. I think that even in this no-code world, almost ANY
ham would at least RECOGNIZE
An additional issue for weak sig CW folks is the nature of digi
operations. Digi operators don't always check for pre-existing activity.
The result is the digi setup begins its 1 minute of howling, irrespective
of some CW activity already in progress. No problem to the digi operator
whose setup
On 9/16/2012 11:02 AM, k6xt wrote:
Like Tom I neither endorse nor object to digi activity, except as it
jams existing CW.
Jam existing CW? What about the SSB stations down around 1820 during a
contest? NO ONE has the right to any frequency. Whoever gets there
first and uses it takes priorit
An additional issue for weak sig CW folks is the nature of digi
operations. Digi operators don't always check for pre-existing activity.
The result is the digi setup begins its 1 minute of howling,
irrespective of some CW activity already in progress. No problem to the
digi operator whose setup
