[Lowfer] Important question on LF QSOs

Fri Mar 23 17:57:11 EDT 2018

Hi Paul,

I noticed the diversity among hams before I was licensed. It is one 
thing that attracted me even though I am not interested in going down 
every side street. It wasn't until some time after I was licensed and on 
the air that I noticed *some* hams don't play well with others. -Shrug-

I expect that from time to time I will fire up WSPR even if Rip 
VanWinkle gets his nap in while I am NOT on WSPR. I recently peeked at 
FT8. Is that spelled right? Some new mode that looks remind of a Yaesu 
radio. I was actually able to copy some stations. I did it with an old 
clunker radio. I have been looking at (and transmitting sometimes) on 
PSK31 using fldigi.

I used to be in the traffic nets and I am thinking of annoying them 
again. Rag chewing? When I am at Wal Mart or Home Depot or Tractor 
Supply or Glen's Market, or the hardware stores I engage many complete 
strangers in those places. At veteran gatherings you'll find me swapping 
lies with all the other vets. At music jams I might be even worse. Bring 
on the chat! Other people and what they do are just too cool.

73,

Bill  KU8H

On 03/23/2018 02:39 PM, N1BUG wrote:
> 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
> ______________________________________________________________
> Lowfer mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Lowfer at mailman.qth.net
> Post must be less than 50KB total for message plus attachment!
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

-- 
bark less - wag more