[CW] Where are all the 80 meter CW ops?

[N2EY at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/27/05 1:35:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
n4pgw-list1 at towncorp.net writes:


> OOPPS, sorry, you did pick up my quotes in there.

No problem


> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: N2EY at aol.com [mailto:N2EY at aol.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 6:53 AM
> To: n4pgw-list1 at towncorp.net; k4kyv at hotmail.com; cw at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [CW] Where are all the 80 meter CW ops?
> 
> In a message dated 6/20/05 9:45:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> n4pgw-list1 at towncorp.net writes:
> 
> 
> 
> > >These days, 80m CW activity is thin on the ground,
> > >even in winter.
> > 
> > Use it or lose it!
> 
> ^^^^^^^ not quoting me...
> 
> Well, I just got back from FD. Used my K2 and a dipole, operating 80/40 CW
> only. Made 170+ QSOs in a few hours of casual operating. About 1/3 on 80
> meters and 2/3 on 40. 
> 
> It was great to hear 80 CW so full of signals, but there was room for more.
> 
> 
> > How can we justify reserving 50% of the band for cw and digital modes if
> > the activity is not there?
> > 
> > Besides the amateur phone operators, I suspect there are non-amateur
> > interests drooling over all those unused frequencies on 80m
> 
> ^^^^^ Not quoting me...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no objection to extending the voice band on 80 meters a bit.  80
> meters is a huge amount of real-estate.  The CW portion is larger than
> several ham bands, however, the voice portion is overcrowded.  Of course,
> the CW portion is truly from 3.5 to 4 MHz :).  
> 
> ^^^^^ there I am.... :)
> 
> 
> Check out what Riley Hollingsworth had to say a few years back, in a speech
> at Dayton:
> 
> "Always keep in mind that we are part of a world community. There are third
> world countries that would love to have 75 Meters or a portion of 75 Meters
> for their telephone company for local telephone service. Then they wouldn’t
> have to give tens of millions of dollars to a contractor to have them come
> in and set it up. Each country at these ITU meetings has one vote — just
> like we do. Our people that go to these ITU meetings will tell us that it’s
> often a personal embarrassment to them when these countries play back tapes
> of what they hear on 75 and 20 Meters in the American amateur bands. They
> say, ‘You want to expand the bands for amateurs for this type of service?’ 
> "
> 
> "It puts them in a very difficult position when they have to defend examples
> of conduct that other countries hear. A lot of these countries don’t like
> America anyway and when they think of the money that auctions for spectrum
> would bring — sometimes it’s 10, 20 or 40 times their gross national
> product. Like it or not, we’re part of a world community."
> 
> The sorts of behavior cited are not because of overcrowding. And they're
> almost all done using voice modes, not CW/digital modes. 
> 
> ^^^^ 75 SSB is overcrowded at certain times of night.  Not all day and not
> all night, but nonetheless, it has its times.

Maybe - but does that justify some of the behaviors heard? Are the folks on 
75
unable to use any other band or mode?

 Even on FD I was not able to
> 
> hear much in the way or 80 CW.  Then again, this is summertime and half my
> one side of my dipole is 3 feet off the ground...

I heard plenty of activity after dark, and a good level for a couple of hours 
before and after dark. In only a couple of hours on the band I worked about 
60 different stations with 5 watts and a dipole. Could have worked a lot more 
if I'd been less tired and overheated. There were plenty more to work; I went 
for the easy ones first. With 100 W, some more time and a cooler location, I 
think I could have gotten 150 QSOs on 80.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80 meters is probably too
> unstable for most computer digital modes.  
> 
> ^^^^ me again...
> 
> 
> 
> Just the opposite! The colorburst PSK31 watering hole is proof of that.
> 
> ^^^^  I probably shouldn't have said "most" as I was referring back to an
> article I was reading several months ago that discussed the reliability of
> digital communications and how it wasn't reliable on 80. Since I don't
> remember where the article is, I also don't know how old.  

What mode were they referring to? 80 is one of the most stable HF bands there 
is!


As for the
> 
> 'colorburst PSK31' I am not familiar with that and would like to know more.
> My experience with digital on 80 was packet and after a few tries, I settled
> down to using it on 2 and 20 meters.  
> 
> 


Some years back, there was a QRP PSK31 rig called "The Warbler". One small 
circuit board that you'd connect to a computer, antenna, and power supply. 
Covered about 2 kc around 3579 kc. $40 kit, put lots of hams on PSK31. 


t was interesting to hear what Hollingsworth said.  From what I have heard,
> 
> I certainly understand what he is saying.  I had to turn to another band one
> evening when my kids were here.  Three groups were drunk and cussing like
> sailors. 
> 

That's exactly what he's talking about. There's no excuse for such behavior 
on the air.

If anything, voice ops should be the *best* behaved, because anyone could be 
listening in (and taping!). But that lesson has somehow gotten lost over the 
years. 

And we should *widen* 75 meters?


> Thanks for the comments.
> Hope to see you on the air sometime.
> 


You too! One of my goals this year has been to spend more time on 80. Lots of 
QSOs there at the right times.


> 73
> Buck
> N4PGW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

73 de Jim, N2EY