This is a very interesting discussion. I'd noticed some bugs in DXpedition
mode with FT8 but am looking forward to those being resolved. I'd suggest
an alternative FT8 frequency for any and all participants to test out
DXPedition mode while the bugs get worked out.
I have an inverted L on 160m and after about 300W on TX I become severely
limited by my lack of RX antennas and become an alligator. For what it's
worth, the existence of FT8 does not reduce my interest in improving my RX
antennas whatsoever. I've worked one or two new countries on 160 on FT8
that I hadn't worked yet on CW. I know that from 9 land even if I maximize
the investment of money and engineering at my QTH toward RX antennas, I'll
still be able to complete more QSOs on FT8 than on CW due to the processing
gain of FT8.
As someone who has (for various reasons) not had the chance (yet) to put up
competitive antennas, the DX bug has bitten me most noticeably with FT8.
When the software prints out a line that shows up purple meaning it's a new
country I get a big rush of adrenaline. It makes doing ham radio from the
black hole a lot more fun. And yes, it's quite a thrill to CQ on 160m FT8
and see RX reports light up across Europe on pskreporter. I'm still an
alligator, but I now have a much better sense of the DX QSOs I'm missing
out on.
So overall I think that FT8 is a great thing for DXing. Yes, it does alter
the fairness of the honor roll competition because of the processing gain,
but if we wanted it to be completely fair we'd incorporate all gain (from
antennas and processing) and use some distance-based metric, handicapping
stations closer to the DX such that they'd be forced to use lower power,
etc. DXing was absolutely not "fair" before FT8, so I don't think that we
have much to worry about with the advent of FT8 other than a flood of new
DXers joining the fun in the pileups.
73,
Matt NQ6N/9
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 7:15 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV <lists@subich.com> wrote:
>
> When was the last time a mechanical RTTY machine responded back
>> without it's human pushing the green keys?
>>
> Mechanical RTTY machines have had answerback (WRU) capability for more
> than 50 years:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletype_Model_33>
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
>
> On 3/30/2018 2:21 PM, Anthony Scandurra wrote:
>
>> "Maybe someday there will be unmanned solar-powered stations on remote DX
>> entities."
>>
>> This was actually proposed at the 2017 IDXC in Visalia by a well-known and
>> prolific DXpeditioner. I was the only person in the room who stood up
>> with
>> a dissenting opinion about it. However, I did have several people come up
>> to me after the presentation was over to tell me they agreed with me.
>>
>> Reducing the human element ruins the accomplishment, in my opinion. I
>> think many others agree with that sentiment.
>>
>> I am all for technological advancement, but, for instance, when SSB
>> supplanted AM, the human element was not reduced.
>>
>> Digital mode proponents will say that there is still a human element to
>> the
>> process (despite what some naysayers have proclaimed), and I agree.
>> However, the REDUCTION of the human element reduces the FUN part of it.
>> One can argue that you cannot copy RTTY without electronic means, either.
>> That does not fully compare with how the JT modes work. The JT modes, more
>> than any others, reduce the human's role in the QSO. When was the last
>> time a mechanical RTTY machine responded back without it's human pushing
>> the green keys?
>>
>> 73, Tony K4QE
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Brian Pease <bpease2@myfairpoint.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> When 90% of band activity is taking place in ~1% of the available
>>> bandwidth, it gets one's attention, doesn't it.
>>> Personally, I have always considered DXpedition, and especially contest,
>>> CW exchanges to be a bit silly, with nearly everyone getting a 5NN signal
>>> report. With today's technology I think eventually a computer will be
>>> able sort out a CW pileup nearly as well as a human, and do it 24/7
>>> while
>>> perhaps giving more accurate signal reports. Maybe someday there will be
>>> unmanned solar-powered stations on remote DX entities. It is certainly
>>> much easier than self-driving cars, which should be sorted out in a few
>>> years.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/30/2018 1:02 PM, Ed Sawyer wrote:
>>>
>>> My thoughts on FT8:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - How is it actually a Q from our normal perspective? The
>>>> comments
>>>> Jeff made on the fact that 2 operators (on both sides of the circuit)
>>>> could
>>>> see evidence of each other for 20 minutes before the "computers" finally
>>>> made the connection - is proof that the operator is not making the QSO.
>>>>
>>>> - There is a floating robot in the Pacific making FT8 QSOs with
>>>> people right now - unattended.
>>>>
>>>> - 3Z9DX has stated that they will leave an FT8 station going
>>>> 24/7
>>>> (which means unattended) on T31.
>>>>
>>>> - Are these what we want to count as QSOs? What about in
>>>> contests
>>>> - FT8 is already infiltrating VHF contests. Should they be considered
>>>> valid
>>>> contest Qs - while you sleep?
>>>>
>>>> - I agree with Jeff and others that for people that that
>>>> consider
>>>> topband a PTA to operate and/or are not CW operators - 160M looks like
>>>> the
>>>> perfect place to drop a robot and go concentrate on something else. But
>>>> isn't this a slippery slope? What about 10M/12M since the sunspots are
>>>> low.
>>>> Or 80M because the static crashes in the tropics are terrible - etc.
>>>> Before
>>>> you know it the whole DXpedition is an FT8 robot while the "crew" is
>>>> lounging about the pool with the XYL/YLs.
>>>>
>>>> - If we continue to facilitate such nonsense, they we deserve
>>>> what
>>>> we get in my opinion. If we decide that the band counter is so
>>>> important
>>>> we
>>>> don't care how we have to get it, then its time to look in the mirror
>>>> folks.
>>>>
>>>> - On the other hand, maybe some people are happier with the
>>>> computer doing the heavy lifting of digging out the QSO. Personally,
>>>> count
>>>> me out of that list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ed N1UR
>>>>
>>>> _________________
>>>> 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
>
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|