*********
I also think it healthy to have these discussions about mode selections,
but it does no one any good to exaggerate the issues and solutions. In
most cases data, or common sense, is available to support or refute claims
that are made. W9RM is a damn good op, as you saw when he operated at your
station, but he does not do sustained rates of 480 an hour or more on 6M
even when Es is in. There is no reason to imply that to make the point that
SSB/CW is more efficient than FT8 or FT4. The actual numbers paint a bad
enough picture. 200 an hour, which is an achievable sustainable rate for
Keith, is still better than the best rate achievable with FT4, probably 100
to 120 an hour, if the activity is there, which it is not currently.
***********
I have not been following this because I have my own opinion on being
required to contest more and more exclusively using digital modes (I just
won't do it...), but, I have NEVER made any claim whatsoever of running the
kind of rate mentioned in that paragraph. 200/hr is easy when conditions
allow, but I don't know where that other number came from. Certainly not
from me.
Setting the record straight....
-W9RM
Keith J Morehouse
Managing Partner
Calmesa Partners G.P.
Olathe, CO
On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 9:30 AM JamesDuffey <jamesduffey@comcast.net> wrote:
> Marshall and the group - You wrote:
>
> “ I proposed checking for SSB/CW on the hour and half hour. What do others
> think about that??? If you find a bit of SSB/CW, then you will surely make
> more contacts and more mults as long as the Es lasts.? If the band dies
> out, then you can go back to FT8.”
>
> I think going to SSB or CW on the hour and/or half hour is a good idea. I
> tried it during the January contest with no results. But if more people did
> it, I think it would feed on itself and generate more analog activity. We
> need to promote that going into the June contest.
>
> I also think it healthy to have these discussions about mode selections,
> but it does no one any good to exaggerate the issues and solutions. In
> most cases data, or common sense, is available to support or refute claims
> that are made. W9RM is a damn good op, as you saw when he operated at your
> station, but he does not do sustained rates of 480 an hour or more on 6M
> even when Es is in. There is no reason to imply that to make the point that
> SSB/CW is more efficient than FT8 or FT4. The actual numbers paint a bad
> enough picture. 200 an hour, which is an achievable sustainable rate for
> Keith, is still better than the best rate achievable with FT4, probably 100
> to 120 an hour, if the activity is there, which it is not currently.
>
> I would like to repeat a point made by K1JT to me, that is FT8 (or FT4) is
> just a mode and is not inherently good or bad in and of itself. It is the
> use of it by operators that adds or subtracts to its utility, not the mode
> itself.
>
> We have increased VHF/UHF contest activity. We just need to figure out how
> to deal with it. - Duffey
>
> James Duffey KK6MC
> Cedar Crest NM
>
> > On Mar 20, 2021, at 06:56, vhfcontesting-request@contesting.com wrote:
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|