What about going back to spark transmissions or AM when talking about
phone? Wasn't SSB such an huge advantage over AM some decades ago? What
about code readers? Computer generated & read RTTY instead of huuuge
teleprinter machines? I wonder if there were similar discussions back
then ...
Technology is advancing, guys. Nothing you can do about it. Yes, I'm
using the FTx modes, too, although I prefer CW & SSB, absolutely. But
ignoring it won't bring you any further. And, believe it or not, the FTx
modes themselves are not the problem. The users are! Using it fully
automated has indeed nothing to do with amateur radio anymore and should
not be given any credit at all. Period. But it's almost impossible to
track ...
Anyway, if you really insist on showing how great you are using non-FTx
modes, why not apply for DXCC-CW or SSB then? The FTx guys won't
influence your standings there. ;-)
73, Olli - DH8BQA
Contest, DX & radio projects: https://www.dh8bqa.de/
Am 16.08.2019 um 16:21 schrieb robert:
GM Ria
A few comments:
I have no information and did not comment on "conspiracies
about it
being a money thing "
Your achievements are very nice. Did you use Low Power?
Were FT8 part of this ? During the 6 months of my using FT8
about 1 1/2 years ago I could not believe the number of YB's
and other
rare DX that were easily worked on 40 meters. Is it really
fair for so many
other many hams trying for a decent number of DXCC countries for
years to all of a sudden see others with high country totals
using FT8
after just a couple years ?
FT8 certainly has it's place in ham radio, but the ARRL
DXCC program
needs a serious new look when it comes mixing up FT8 with CW,
SSB, and RTTY.
73 BoB WA1FCN
On 8/15/2019 8:32 AM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
It took me 13 years to get 327 DXCC, challenge 1900+ and 9 band DXCC
including 160. I did my first DXCC in one year from a mobile station
with a 6 foot whip.
I did most of it on CW.
I really don’t see how FT8 made it any easier.
The reason it takes so little time now is because of the DX cluster
and all of the data aggregation tools.
The game changes, and if anything FT8 has made it harder for those of
us who can just get in/out of a CW/SSB pileup because we developed
that skill. But it has made DX possible for those who live in
apartments and other heavily restricted places.
At the League we discuss this and the consensus generally is that FT8
is popular and brings in new operators. It’s a good thing. Separating
them would tell ops who operate this mode that they are somehow not
real hams or real DXers which is not a message to be sending.
Especially since the average age of DXers is trending higher.
The conspiracies about it being a money thing really aren’t valid. If
anything processing the increased volume of QSLs and LoTW server load
costs the League money, so it’s definitely not a money maker.
73
Ria
N2RJ
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:08 AM robert <wa1fcn@charter.net
<mailto:wa1fcn@charter.net>> wrote:
GM Matts/Yuri
I agree with you about the ARRL's DXCC credit system.
A mistake for sure. As a life long low power operator
it has
taken me 54 years to reach 40 meter DXCC of 280. By
allowing
FT8 credits mixed in with every thing I foresee in the
near
future,
many achieving this in 10 years or less of effort. At
the
next sun spot
cycle peak high DXCC totals on 10, 12, and 15 will be
meaningless. I
know of hams who no longer take part in DXCC for just
this reason.
FT8 credit for DXCC is fine, but keep it separated from
single
band/mixed
mode totals.
74 BoB WA1FCN
On 8/15/2019 1:30 AM, Mats Strandberg wrote:
> I tend to agree with Yury.
>
> CY9 was much more balanced between modes, than the 3D2 (or least
that was
> my perception).
>
> It might be so that at the time of John’s (GD) participation in
KP5 and
> KP1, that there was no ambition to maximize the revenue through
donations
> (before, during and after the expedition). I don’t question that.
>
> However, since FT8 appeared as an equal mode for DXCC (along
with CW,SSB
> and RTTY), it definitely has changed some expeditions into
becoming
> automated QSO/QSL-creating machines...
>
> John, during KP1/KP5, the FT modes were not available, so
comparison might
> not be fully relevant.
>
> It is maybe good that FT8 will bring new “DXers” to the table,
but the
> appearance of this dull mode... has forever changed the feeling
of “being
> on the other side of the expedition”, and most likely also,
being an
> operator of that expedition as well.
>
> I question myself, what is the pleasure of being that rare DX,
giving out
> the ATNOs and the new band points, when the reality is that NO
operator
> skills are required from me to make those “contacts” happen!
>
> Before, good DX-expeditions we’re separated by less good ones,
because of
> operator skills. How wonderful was it not to listen to great
operators,
> handling thousand of callers, to maximize the number of contacts
and happy
> DXers on the other side?
>
> Those days were interesting and a memory of our past. The new
FT8 euphoria
> has forever changed the perception of DX-big, thanks to ARRL’s
greed for
> award revenue ;(
>
> And, what we now see is the result of the wrong decision to
equalize FTx,
> JT and other artificial modes, with RTTY, SSB and CW, and accept
them for
> DXCC Mixed.
>
> The correct way would have been to create FT/JT DXCC separate
from Classic
> DXCC...
>
> DXCC as we all knew it, has been hurt tremendously by ARRL
unthoughtful
> decision to accept FT/JT in Mixed!
>
> 73 de RM2D (Mats)
>
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 05:14, John Crovelli <w2gd@hotmail.com
<mailto:w2gd@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> I want to take a moment to dispel the notion suggested by Yuri
that
>> DXpedition operating strategy is all about financial
considerations. It
>> simply isn't for well planned operations.
>>
>> It is the intent of virtually every DXpedition to provide an
opportunity
>> for those running 100 watts or more to work an ATNO.
DXpeditions teams are
>> constantly considering ways to reach the broadest possible
audience while
>> on site.
>>
>> The implication that operating strategy and mode selection is
all about
>> post operation donations (to cover costs) is just not true.
Well organized
>> teams have these issues resolved well in advance.
>>
>> I've been on some large DXpeditions (KP5 and KP1 - both were
top ten
>> world). Our operating teams NEVER set goals based upon
donations, and in
>> fact, this issue was never even discussed since no one felt it
to be
>> important. Again, financing issues were resolved well before
we ever
>> departed for the islands.
>>
>> We did however (on a daily basis) take stock of propagation,
probably of
>> openings, and how we were providing global coverage ... to
prevent missing
>> opportunities to those regions traditionally most difficult.
As a tool,
>> FT8 can be useful.
>>
>> FT8 modes are providing options not previously available and
for the most
>> part now replaces RTTY activity. It is my expectation CW and
SSB will
>> always be the main modes for DXpeditions.
>>
>> John, W2GD aka P40W/P44W
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
<mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com>> on behalf of Yuri <
>> ve3dz@rigexpert.net <mailto:ve3dz@rigexpert.net>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 4:57 PM
>> To: 'Jeff Clarke' <ku8e@ku8e.com <mailto:ku8e@ku8e.com>>;
cq-contest@contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> <
>> cq-contest@contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>>
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
>>
>>>>> Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are
putting FT8
>> first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this
isn't the
>> future of ham radio.
>>
>> I might not be politically correct, but why not to mention that
one of the
>> all of the DXpeditions' goals is to try to maximize the overall
QSO count
>> in order to get more donation? That's what hiding behind "best
kept secret"
>> (that everybody knows) of F/H mode in FT8 in my opinion.
>> I'm not saying it's bad or good, but it's a fact.
>> Multi-channel streams need to be prohibited, otherwise it looks
like
>> hypocrisy.
>> I still remember how the rules for M/S in the ARRL Contests
were changed
>> under the pressure after PJ4G(?) team managed to have 2
stations on the
>> same band (even not at the same time).
>>
>> Yuri VE3DZ
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
<mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com>] On Behalf Of
>> Jeff Clarke
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 10:51 AM
>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
>>
>> Didn't someone create a FT8 contest reflector? It would be nice
to take
>> all these comments over there. Seems like FT8 is monopolizing
the contest
>> reflector just like it is on the air.
>>
>> Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are
putting FT8
>> first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this
isn't the
>> future of ham radio.
>>
>> BTW I do operate some FT8 because I'm working on a the digital
DXCC.
>> (because there is hardly any RTTY activity outside of contests)
Now that
>> I've reached 100 countries I'm starting to get bored with it.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|