[Lowfer] IDing

[JD]

On Sun, December 17, 2017 7:52 am, David Stinson wrote:
>
> Many have forgotten that "decode distance"
> is not the be-all-and-end-all for everyone in this field. We've told
> ourselves that "CW won't work" and instead of questioning that assumption,
> some, desiring to be part of the community, adopt the group canon and keep
>  repeating it. Being often-repeated does not make error into
> truth.
>

You don't have to defend CW from me. I'm not arguing against it. My point
was and remains, though, that under the limits of Part 15, it will not
achieve results at great distances "on a regular basis."  That's what
beaconing is fundamentally about.

I'm also not arguing that beaconing is better than manual QSOs...I'd love
for there to be more QSO opportunities, in all modes, but that's a
decision for individual operators to make. For those who choose beaconing,
though, why tie one hand behind their back? There's certainly nothing
wrong with including CW IDs on a beacon, and I've never heard anyone say
"CW won't work." What I said is, it's not realistic to think that part of
the ID will be as consistently copied. That's the reason I offered to
explain why most ops with legacy hardware have never felt much motivation
to change their format.

I've been in the hobby for nearly 30 years and have been reporting on it
in print for the past 25, so I am well familiar with the timeline of
changes that have taken place. The past feats of LowFERing such as those
you mentioned were real enough. But remember, they were accomplished at a
time when there were a LOT more stations on the air than now, and when
Part 15 at 1750 m was basically the only option for LF experimenters. That
meant, statistically, there was a reasonable chance of an opening to SOME
active station along SOME path on any decent night...or perhaps in the
daytime, if there were enough other stations in the same or adjoining
state. Hence, QSOs were a lot more feasible.

I wish that were still the case, but it's not. This season we appear to be
down to EIGHT active Part 15 1750 m stations. (It was about to be fewer
until I persuaded one not to go QRT with a timely report of his QRSS20
beacon signal this month.) Considering all the guys who moved to Part 5
and eventually 97 (and some who became SK), it is now hundreds of miles
from me to the nearest 1750 m stations. Even at my quiet farm location, I
seldom get WM or SIW strongly enough to hear any carrier--but I can SEE
them most nights of the year, and also in the daytime at this season.
Those few who are much farther away are sometimes visible at night, and
might be once-in-a-lifetime aural copy at best. Such a scattered handful
is not conducive to QSOs, and barely to beaconing.

It's not correct to assume beaconing drove out QSOs because of the
availability of digital modes. That's confusing cause and effect. The
reality is, beaconing is what was left by default after the most active
ops went to other bands where more power was (legally) permitted, and I
don't fault them for it.

Furthermore, there are plenty of digital modes for anything from contest
contacts to ragchewing, so it wasn't the presence of these newfangled
intruders that shut down "exchange of actual information," either. The
slow digital modes became adopted by beacons over time because the simple
fact is they're more effective at doing what matters to beacons.

Absolutely NOBODY is saying digital modes should be the
"be-all-and-end-all for everyone" in the hobby.  There's nothing
whatsoever to prevent anyone from conducting QSOs in CW or any other mode.
There's nothing but the "why bother?" factor to preclude anyone beaconing
in any mode they're nostalgic for, or even with an unmodulated carrier at
1750 m. There's no anti-CW conspiracy here. If that's your thing, go for
it!