Hi Rich,
Although I do support CW with all my heart, PSK 31 can copy several signals
simultaneously and the bandwidth is quite comparable with that of CW. Never
say never...
Igor UA9CDC
> Another aspect of both CW and SSB is that a sufficiently skilled operator
> can copy more than one signal at a time. I'm not aware of a "new digital
> mode" that supports this "feature".
>
> Of course if you increased the data rate, and hence the bandwidth, you
could
> make the QSO's so fast that it would be indistinguishable from copying
more
> than one signal at a time, but the increased bandwidth would leave CW as
> superior again. ;-)
>
> Rich, K2WR
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>From Ward Silver" <hwardsil@centurytel.net Tue Aug 6 05:44:51 2002
From: Ward Silver" <hwardsil@centurytel.net (Ward Silver)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Distributed Multi-Ops and Experimental Class
Message-ID: <001401c23d04$1ec53780$27d7fea9@mirage>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 11:26:05AM -0400, Dennis McAlpine wrote:
> > Yes, Jim, this year's ARRL HQ stations moved things up a bit but =
look at
> > some of the Europeans and their geographic diversification. =
Following their
> > example, why shouldn't we have stations spread out all over the =
country,
> > e.g. K1EA, N2RM, W3LPL, W4MYA, etc. In fact, given the geographic =
range,
> > why not have multiple statins on the same band, e.g. a W6 on 80 at =
the same
> > time as a W2. OK, so you can't have multiple statios on the same =
band. How
> > about a half hour from the East, then a half hour from midwest, then =
a half
> > hour from west coast and keep repeating the process. Tht would allow =
us to
> > use 36 different stations (6 bands X 2 modes x 3 stations per mode).
> > Imagine merging those logs.
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:30:01 -0500, Ken Harker wrote:
> Actually, the software we used at W1AW/5 is 95% of the way to making =
that
> sort of operation quite feasible. The stations at W1AW/5 were all=20
> interconnected by TCP/IP over the internet, so whether they are in the =
same
> state or not is pretty minimally important. And since the complete log
> of the entire operation was always available to each of the stations =
in
> realtime, you wouldn't need to worry about dupes or not knowing which =
bands=20
> to pass calling stations to, etc.
>
> The next big step in the software would be to integrate some very =
responsive=20
> inter-station signalling that required few keystrokes to send and =
little=20
> brain-power to receive. Signals like "I am now QRT - you take it over =
from
> here," or "I can hear him well enough to complete the QSO, please =
standby
> while I work him" and such boiled down to something that makes it fast
> was the one trick we lacked at W1AW/5. Such signalling might also find =
itself
> useful for traditional multi-multis.
>
> With this sort of idea, if you had three stations on 80SSB, you could =
have=20
> the midwest station CQing, and then whenever a caller comes along whom =
he=20
> cannot hear, you could have the east coast or west coast stations jump =
in
> on a QSO-by-QSO basis to complete the contacts while still limiting =
the
> team to one transmitted signal per band-mode at a time.
I have been suggesting an "Experimental" category in regular contests =
for just this kind of activity. There's really no reason why not to try =
it in, say, CQ WW except for it not meeting the requirements for any of =
the categories. I think an Experimental category would open the doors =
to some innovations. =20
About the only requirement for Experimental category would be to obey =
all the rules of your ham license and whatever you do, you have to write =
it up and explain it publically so we can all think about it. You might =
want to restrict it a tad by limits on one signal per band, 1500 watts =
maximum output, etc. If the contest sponsors don't want to implement =
another category, then submit the results as a check log and write it up =
anyway. If it's a really good idea, either the idea will be adopted or =
you can start a new contest.
As far as just distributed efforts, you can have distributed M/S or M/M =
as with W1AW/5, although identification gets a little sticky on a =
worldwide basis. You could also have distributed teams. There comes a =
whole new set of interesting strategic problems like how to allocate =
bands as the earth rotates. What if you have enough bandwidth to listen =
from remote sites? What if a single-op has a half-dozen remote =
stations? The possibilities are pretty wide open. The Internet offers =
a tremendous dose of technology, why don't we make it possible to use =
it, while still retaining an emphasis on operating skill?
73, Ward N0AX
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
|