It has nothing to do with CW. No serious station ever spent more then a
token amount of time in CW if the band was open. You could always run
twice the rate on SSB if the band was open.
The problem is there is no longer anyone in SSB !
-W9RM
Keith Morehouse
via MotoG
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 12:50 PM John Kludt <johnnykludt@gmail.com> wrote:
> All
>
> But should we not be looking at why FT8 is dominant and not trying to
> figure out ways to put the genie back in the bottle?. Maybe it has to do
> with the apparently declining number of "good CW ops" or the number of
> people who even know Morse Code. Maybe it has something to do with the
> ability to be successful, whatever that means, with less than a KW and
> stacked beams. Maybe it has to do with the possibility that for a station
> who mostly does S&P it is more efficient than SSB S&P. Remember the job of
> the little stations is to maximize their score, not the score of the big
> multi/multi run stations. And I get it, that is bad news to the
> multi/multi players.
>
> We will get it figured out. It is a hobby and it is about having fun.
> Being the 6m band captain for a multi/multi believe me I get it. But I
> also know we can't fix it by turning the clock backwards. Genies do not
> like to go back in the bottle.
>
> John
> Sent from my Verizon Motorola Smartphone
> On Sep 18, 2019 13:11, Mark Spencer <mark@alignedsolutions.com> wrote:
> >
> > Or perhaps be able to work a station twice on one band using any two
> separate modes (ie. Digital, Phone or CW)
> >
> > That way operators who didn't want to run digital could run Phone and CW
> and still be able to work stations twice on each band.
> >
> > 73
> >
> > Mark S
> > VE7AFZ
> >
> > mark@alignedsolutions.com
> > 604 762 4099
> >
> > > On Sep 18, 2019, at 11:03 AM, Dave <kdcarlso@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > If you got rid of the two signal rule you would actually reduce the
> > > activity. If there is a rule change I would support the idea of being
> able
> > > to work a station twice. Once on digital and once on CW or SSB. That
> would
> > > help reduce FT8's dominance.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > > N2OA
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 9:59 AM RT Clay <rt_clay@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I think the mode switching problem (and people getting "stuck on
> FT8")
> > >> has been made worse by the recent change in ARRL VHF contest rules
> that
> > >> allows single ops to transmit simultaneously on multiple bands. It
> was easy
> > >> for example for me to set up a single computer with two sound cards
> and two
> > >> radios running FT8. I think many ops now want to have a radio running
> 6M
> > >> FT8 all the time to catch weak openings on that band.
> > >> Only allowing a single signal at once on ANY band (like HF contests)
> would
> > >> discourage single ops from trying to cover multiple bands on FT8.
> > >>
> > >> Technically It is not easy to have a computer+two radios on FT8 and
> easily
> > >> switch back and forth from SSB (keeping a soundcard for voice
> messages of
> > >> course). Yes, you can go to multiple computers instead.
> > >>
> > >> Also, allowing internet chat rooms I think has made FT8 use take
> priority
> > >> over SSB/CW, just because it is much easier to do FT8 + internet
> compared
> > >> to SSB/CW + internet.
> > >> Tor N4OGW
> > >>
> > >> On Wednesday, September 18, 2019, 7:41:47 AM CDT, N1BUG <
> > >> paul@n1bug.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> This is a situation I am going to have to investigate and try to
> > >> deal with as soon as I have some quality free time for radio...
> > >> hopefully in about 5 to 6 weeks.
> > >>
> > >> Call it over thinking things if you want, but of necessity band
> > >> switching tasks are complicated here. I am active from LF to UHF and
> > >> can only afford to have one good transceiver. VHF band switching
> > >> involves switching 28 MHz IF to the appropriate transverter,
> > >> reducing power output from the transceiver, enabling the correct
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|