I would agree a separate DXCC award should be established for operators using
remote stations that exceed a certain distance from the control point...like a
station half way around the world. To me that has more impact on a level
playing field and working rare ones than a mode like FT8...
Cecil
K5DL
Sent from my iPad
> On Aug 2, 2019, at 7:37 PM, Cecil <chacuff@cableone.net> wrote:
>
> Agree...
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Aug 2, 2019, at 7:29 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV <lists@subich.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 2019-08-02 8:06 PM, GEORGE WALLNER wrote:
>>> expand the DXCC program by creating a new category! FT-x is
>>> sufficiently different to justify that. The skills need for FT-x are
>>> different from those required for the traditional modes.
>>
>> Absolutely not! All modes used for DXCC have more skills in common
>> than they have differences. There is more difference between CW and
>> SSB than there is among RTTY, PSKxx, FTx - yet all count for DXCC
>> Mixed. The key for any mode is knowing what band/time to choose
>> (when propagation is most favorable) and understanding where the
>> other station is listening. Those apply to FTx as much as CW or SSB.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>
>>> On 2019-08-02 8:06 PM, GEORGE WALLNER wrote:
>>> Nobody is talking about "shutting" anything down.
>>> Quite the opposite: expand the DXCC program by creating a new category!
>>> FT-x is sufficiently different to justify that. The skills need for FT-x
>>> are different from those required for the traditional modes. A new award
>>> category would reflect that.
>>> I would go further, but I don't think too far:
>>> FT-x could be crucial to HAM radio's future. On a recent mini DXpedition I
>>> asked a young and recently licensed HAM to operate FT-8. He said, sure,
>>> give me a minute. He brought his laptop (not the one that was part of the
>>> FT-8 station) and proceeded to operate FT-8, while using his laptop to
>>> watch a movie and was looking at Facebook, and he was in chats with friends
>>> (and HAM-s) on his phone. I was somewhat peeved, until I came to realize
>>> that this is how the new generation lives: multi-threading using their
>>> electronic devices. Unlike us, most of them are not willing to put on the
>>> head-phones and concentrate on weak CW signals for hours, to the exclusion
>>> of everything else. They don't live like that and they will not enjoy a
>>> hobby like that. It is not my place to judge whether this is good or bad.
>>> It is what it is. But to attract this new "multi-activity generation" to
>>> HAM radio (an entire generation, not just the odd kid), the hobby must
>>> offer a mode that is compatible with how they live. FT-8 is perfect for
>>> that: it can be operated remotely from a smart-phone via an app, while
>>> riding a bus or train and doing other things... And, yes, it can be
>>> automated.
>>> There will be nothing wrong with a young HAM working 100 countries in a
>>> month while not even at his station. Good for him! Just don't mix his
>>> achievement with mine. (Is RTTY really a digital mode? It seems to be very
>>> analog these days.)
>>> 73,
>>> George,
>>> AA7JV
>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 17:05:23 -0500
>>> Cecil <chacuff@cableone.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>> On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Cecil <chacuff@cableone.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is nonsense....
>>>>
>>>>> That is only possible if someone has modified the software and is
>>>>> cheating the system...which I might add could be done with computers and
>>>>> creative software writing to any of the digital modes including CW....
>>>>
>>>> That is cheating and not grounds for disallowance from total DXCC
>>>> participation for all users.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly I can do that for one QSO if I need to run to the bathroom or
>>>> grab a quick cup of coffee etc....but if you believe for a second that the
>>>> FT8 software is designed to crank it up, walk away for a couple hours and
>>>> come back later to tally up your take as you describe you are showing your
>>>> lack of knowledge of WSJT’s design.
>>>>
>>>> Am I suggesting that some are not doing that...no...not for a minute.
>>>> Would I suggest that all DXers are running no more than the legal limit
>>>> when chasing a new one or no more than 200 watts on 30 meters, or not
>>>> using a remote station element to gain an unfair advantage to add a new
>>>> one...nope.
>>>> But it is happening...
>>>>
>>>> Should we shut down the entire awards system because the possibility
>>>> exists that someone will cheat...I think not.
>>>>
>>>> I for one think you should rethink your article before submission Alan...
>>>>
>>>> Respectfully
>>>>
>>>> Cecil
>>>> K5DL
>>>>>>> On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:22 PM, Alan Swinger <awswinger@earthlink.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> . Since FT8 operators can walk away and not participate in QSOs, and
>>>>>> come back after some other activity and see how many new countries and
>>>>>> QSOs that the computer made,
>>>>
>>>> _________________
>>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
>>> _________________
>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
>> _________________
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
>
> _________________
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
|