I would just opine this is a colossal waste of spectrum - not in terms of
bandwidth per se but the inefficiency and low information transfer rate.
Moreover propagation testing is really not an issue on 160 as it would be on
the "lowfer" frequencies and one could say this mode really isn't about that
anyway. Id be interested in that hams views on band use for this since 160 is
a well used band.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 31, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's interesting, and brings to mind a question I've been wondering about
> for low-data-rate weak signal modes such as JT65, JT9 (which take 60
> seconds to send a CQ), and QRSS (24 hours?!).
>
> In the real world on 160, what would any of these modes really gain for an
> operator already skilled in CW?
>
> From reading posts about JT9 and JT65 on 160, the distance gain over
> ordinary CW is really nothing to write home about. Does anyone have any
> real-word experiences that say otherwise?
>
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
>
>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Lee K7TJR <k7tjr@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> ... the carrier on 1810.8 KHz has been found. ... a ham running QRSS
>> where it takes 24 hours to send a CQ. HuH?
>>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|