[CW] subands

[scott mcmullen]

hi all,

--- "Alan W. N5LF" <n5lf@qsl.net> wrote:
> Why does he suggest a MINIMUM bandwidth? Under his
> plan, CW would no longer
> be universally allowed.  So, if my EMERGENCY HF net
> has trouble passing
> critical info on HF (including where to QSY to),
> does that mean we wouldn't
> be able to handle the traffic on frequency in CW?
> Mode agility is a great
> advantage to ham radio.

alan's comments brought to mind a thought i was 
musing about some time ago. does anyone know if any 
of the ares section nets have experimented with
"holistic" nets, which allow participants to check
in using whatever mode or facility is available to
them?

i could envision circumstances in which some net
operators are in a disaster area without access to
commercial mains or even functioning repeaters. 
but operators (perhaps deployed) there may have 
qrp or even qrpp cw transceivers with solar power
panels and small gel cells.

such nets would have to break for checkins by mode;
for example, by QNI'ing SSB checkins, then QNI'ing
CW stations, then QNI'ing PSK31 checkins.

the idea may in practice turn out to be a bad one
all around; but i was curious if anyone had heard
of any emcomm groups had experimented with the
concept.

my impression is that outside of NTS, cw operators
are by and large locked out of most public service
activity, but in a real emergency, could be quite
useful, such as in the aftermath of a widespread 
hurricane.

> 
> We do not want CW-only subbands in exchange for
> exclusion from anywhere
> else. CW should remain legal everywhere.

agreed

73,
scott nj0e

=====
Scott McMullen, NJ0E
http://www.geocities.com/scottamcmullen
scottamcmullen@yahoo.com
Dripping Springs, Texas

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com