Well, as an East Coaster, I agree with you. In the past few contests, I
have had about 30-40% CW Qs (>100). This contest I had less than 10. My
rate can be high on CW if there is activity, there just wasn't activity or
propagation.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 23:21 K7XC Tim Marek <k7xcnv1@gmail.com> wrote:
> WHOA! Hold up a bit People
>
> I have had phenomenal luck running rate on 6M CW in the past when I
> couldn't get anyone's attention on SSB.
>
> We don't all run 1500W into stacked yagi's at ridiculous heights with
> several sets pointing 5 directions and a pair of 7ele yagis rotatable at
> 100 ft for the weak ones.
>
> I use a single 6el 24ft boom DK7ZB design at 27 feet as that's as high as I
> can safely support it.
>
> So before you drag CW through the mud, as is typical these days, I am here
> to tell the tale that SSB is NOT always faster than CW.
>
> You folks out east could learn something from operating from the center of
> the West and 500 Miles inland from the coast, Locked behind the Sierra
> Nevada Mountains that run from DM05 to CN93 with 99% of ALL local activity
> on the other side.
>
> It will humble ALL of you.
>
> Rant Mode disengaged... Flame away as you wish.
>
> 73s de Tim - K7XC - DM09jh... sk
>
> Adapt, Overcome, Succeed!
>
> PS: FTx is not the solution for contesting.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:45 AM Jay RM <w9rm@calmesapartners.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|