[Lowfer] Important question on LF QSOs

[N1BUG]

Hi Bill,

This is why the diversity available in amateur radio is such a good
thing. There is something for (almost) everyone. Ragchewing isn't my
cup of tea, but I respect those to whom it is. That's the main
reason I was only on 630 meter CW once or twice, even though I love
CW. It seems to be ragchewer territory, so I QSY'd. I prefer
minimal, short QSOs as that allows me to enjoy being on the air.
This isn't something that is likely to change at this point, as it
hasn't in 37 years of doing radio. It's not that I am unfriendly but
there are reasons why ragchewing isn't for me.

I'm an explorer, builder, always looking for adventure and new
things to try. I am fascinated by propagation and enjoy pushing
limits. Limits of propagation, of my station, of myself as a weak
signal operator. This is why 2200 meters appeals to me so much. In
amateur bands, this is the extreme! I have a minimum standard on
what to me constitutes an acceptable minimum QSO and I won't
compromise it even though many today have lower requirements. At the
end of the day I have to respect myself and my accomplishments.

My first choice would be to complete a (minimal) 2200 meter
trans-Atlantic QSO on normal speed CW. That requires a superstation
at both ends and a lot of luck. Second choice would be JT9 which
takes five minutes but still requires a station well equipped for
both transmitting and receiving. Presently I know of no one capable
of working me on either mode. That leaves me with the super slow
creepy crawly modes if I am going to do it in the foreseeable
future. I'm good with that if I can find a QSO partner willing to
expend the effort but I didn't want to twist someone's arm to spend
a week working me and then have respected members of the community
say that has historically not been considered a valid QSO.

I have done a lot of WSPR since coming to this band. I would prefer
to be making QSOs but since there are very few interested and
capable, I'm on WSPR. At least that allows me to study propagation
and learn the best ways of exploiting it for future QSOs. I try to
put a CW ID at the end of my WSPR transmissions for non-digital
operators but lately doing mixed WSPR-2 and WSPR-15 there weren't
enough slots available in my beacon transmitter to program that for
every WSPR transmission. I settled on CW ID at the end of the
WSPR-15 transmissions.

73,
Paul N1BUG



On 03/23/2018 11:41 AM, Bill Cromwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> The creepy-crawly slow-motion QSOs are not my cup of tea. But! I do not 
> have to participate:) If two stations are able to successfully 
> communicate their information then it's a QSO. The idea underlying those 
> "eventually" modes is to some day communicate some kind of 
> 'intelligence' under very adverse conditions. I think that starts with 
> "hey, there is a station out their transmitting" and progresses to who 
> and where they are then through to the end of a two-way (or more way) 
> exchange. A long-winded rag chew at conversational speeds is not part of 
> the definitions I have seen. If the information exchanged has to 
> actually be useful that would exclude most QSOs <sly grin>.
> 
> My very first novice QSO qualified for RCC (rag chewers club) and for 
> that matter, so did my second. The tee shirt is a long time gone. QRSS 
> and WSPR are not spoken here. But I can easily QSY if they are on.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Bill  KU8H
> 
> On 03/23/2018 08:38 AM, N1BUG wrote:
>> LF / 2200 meter community,
>>
>> I am a little afraid to ask this question. I don't want to start a
>> "war" here. But...
>>
>> What is the feeling in the LF community about a QSO (DFCW or QRSS)
>> which takes more than a single night to complete? Is this OK or will
>> it be seen as cheating?
>>
>> I am a very conservative operator but I cannot think of any reason
>> why a QSO spanning a few nights would not be perfectly OK. To me it
>> seems that's just taking advantage of available propagation and
>> (very slow) modes which can get information across.
>>
>> I do think that if the operators stop for some nights, the QSO
>> should reset to the beginning because that is a new attempt.
>>
>> I'm trying to find out what the community feels about this. I want
>> to be a respectable member of this community, not an invading
>> outlaw. ;-) If a QSO taking a few nights is considered evil, I won't
>> do it. Now is your chance to educate me.
>>
>> 73,
>> Paul N1BUG