Date   

Re: Falkland Isl

Joseph Miller <kj8o.ham@...>
 

Keep trying, Joe, I think I heard him at least a half-dozen times before
finally working him last fall.

73 de Joe KJ8O

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:06 PM, ljl2002@... <joe_molon@...>wrote:

**


I just used the QTH that was given just in case there were some IOTA
hunters out there. I sure would have liked to make the contact but the
prop just wasn't there this time. I will certainly keep looking for him
though. You never know when you will get the right conditions and he will
be in the log.

I'm not crying though. My consolation prize was a QSO with SV1KMK/MM
somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico which made my day. Maybe the Falklands
next time.





Re: Falkland Isl

ljl2002@att.net
 

I just used the QTH that was given just in case there were some IOTA hunters out there.  I sure would have liked to make the contact but the prop just wasn't there this time.  I will certainly keep looking for him though.  You never know when you will get the right conditions and he will be in the log.
 
I'm not crying though.  My consolation prize was a QSO with SV1KMK/MM somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico which made my day.  Maybe the Falklands next time.
 
Joe
KA1PPV  #1482

From: Jerry <n9avy@...>
To: 070@...
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: [070] Re: Falkland Isl

 
You're right, but we have some LU ops in group and I thought I make them feel better since the Falkland Islanders vote to keep British rule.  It's a big political mess and I can't fathom it.  Kind of like U.S. and Mexico fighting over Catalina Is !  :-)

Jerry  N9AVY

--- On Wed, 3/20/13, lee_humphrey65 <mailto:lee_humphrey%40sky.com> wrote:

From: lee_humphrey65 <mailto:lee_humphrey%40sky.com>
Subject: [070] Re: Falkland Isl
To: mailto:070%40yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 6:42 PM

 

Hi being a Brit and sitting at work,next to a Falklands veteran,politics should be shyed away from at all times.

Lee

G6BFP

--- In mailto:070%40yahoogroups.com, Jerry <n9avy@...> wrote:

Not Falkland Is. .... Islas Malvinas,   Hi !   :-)
--- On Wed, 3/20/13, ljl2002@... <joe_molon@...> wrote:
From: ljl2002@... <joe_molon@...>
Subject: Re: [070] Falkland Isl
To: "mailto:070%40yahoogroups.com070@...>
Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 4:20 PM
 
Joe,
 
  It was the first time that I ever saw Falkland but couldn't get through the pileup.  I figured that someone with more power might.
Oh well, next time.
GL 73
Joe
KA1PPV  #1482
From: Joseph Miller <kj8o.ham@...>
To: mailto:070%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: [070] Falkland Isl
Thanks Joe,
I heard him, no joy, maybe another day
73 de Joe KJ8O
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 8:55 PM, ljl2002@... <joe_molon@...>wrote:
**
VP8LP is calling CQ on 14071.3 khz now @ 00:54 UTC.
Fair sig into CT.
GO get him!
Joe
KA1PPV #1482
 
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Check out the 070 Club website at <http://www.podxs070.com/> for the latest information on 070 Club activities.
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: Falkland Isl

ljl2002@att.net
 

OH boy!  Am I subject to British invasion for that?
 
Joe
KA1PPV  #1482

From: Jerry <n9avy@...>
To: 070@...
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: [070] Falkland Isl

 
Not Falkland Is. .... Islas Malvinas,   Hi !   :-)

--- On Wed, 3/20/13, mailto:ljl2002%40att.net <mailto:joe_molon%40yahoo.com> wrote:

From: mailto:ljl2002%40att.net <mailto:joe_molon%40yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [070] Falkland Isl
To: "mailto:070%40yahoogroups.commailto:070%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 4:20 PM

 

Joe,

 

  It was the first time that I ever saw Falkland but couldn't get through the pileup.  I figured that someone with more power might.

Oh well, next time.

GL 73

Joe

KA1PPV  #1482

From: Joseph Miller <mailto:kj8o.ham%40gmail.com>

To: mailto:070%40yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:16 PM

Subject: Re: [070] Falkland Isl

Thanks Joe,

I heard him, no joy, maybe another day

73 de Joe KJ8O

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 8:55 PM, mailto:ljl2002%40att.net <mailto:joe_molon%40yahoo.com>wrote:

**
VP8LP is calling CQ on 14071.3 khz now @ 00:54 UTC.
Fair sig into CT.
GO get him!
Joe
KA1PPV #1482
 


------------------------------------

Check out the 070 Club website at <http://www.podxs070.com/> for the latest information on 070 Club activities.

Yahoo! Groups Links



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: Falkland Isl

Jerry N9AVY
 

You're right, but we have some LU ops in group and I thought I make them feel better since the Falkland Islanders vote to keep British rule.  It's a big political mess and I can't fathom it.  Kind of like U.S. and Mexico fighting over Catalina Is !  :-)

Jerry  N9AVY

--- On Wed, 3/20/13, lee_humphrey65 <lee_humphrey@...> wrote:

From: lee_humphrey65 <lee_humphrey@...>
Subject: [070] Re: Falkland Isl
To: 070@...
Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 6:42 PM
















 









Hi being a Brit and sitting at work,next to a Falklands veteran,politics should be shyed away from at all times.

Lee

G6BFP



--- In 070@..., Jerry <n9avy@...> wrote:

Not Falkland Is. .... Islas Malvinas,   Hi !   :-)
--- On Wed, 3/20/13, ljl2002@... <joe_molon@...> wrote:
From: ljl2002@... <joe_molon@...>
Subject: Re: [070] Falkland Isl
To: "070@...@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 4:20 PM
 
Joe,
 
  It was the first time that I ever saw Falkland but couldn't get through the pileup.  I figured that someone with more power might.
Oh well, next time.
GL 73
Joe
KA1PPV  #1482
From: Joseph Miller <kj8o.ham@...>
To: 070@...
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: [070] Falkland Isl
Thanks Joe,
I heard him, no joy, maybe another day
73 de Joe KJ8O
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 8:55 PM, ljl2002@... <joe_molon@...>wrote:
**
VP8LP is calling CQ on 14071.3 khz now @ 00:54 UTC.
Fair sig into CT.
GO get him!
Joe
KA1PPV #1482
 
------------------------------------
Check out the 070 Club website at <http://www.podxs070.com/> for the latest information on 070 Club activities.
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: Falkland Isl

lee_humphrey65
 

Hi being a Brit and sitting at work,next to a Falklands veteran,politics should be shyed away from at all times.
Lee
G6BFP

--- In 070@..., Jerry <n9avy@...> wrote:

Not Falkland Is. .... Islas Malvinas,   Hi !   :-)

--- On Wed, 3/20/13, ljl2002@... <joe_molon@...> wrote:

From: ljl2002@... <joe_molon@...>
Subject: Re: [070] Falkland Isl
To: "070@..." <070@...>
Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 4:20 PM
















 









Joe,

 

  It was the first time that I ever saw Falkland but couldn't get through the pileup.  I figured that someone with more power might.

Oh well, next time.

GL 73

Joe

KA1PPV  #1482



From: Joseph Miller <kj8o.ham@...>

To: 070@...

Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:16 PM

Subject: Re: [070] Falkland Isl



Thanks Joe,



I heard him, no joy, maybe another day



73 de Joe KJ8O



On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 8:55 PM, ljl2002@... <joe_molon@...>wrote:



**
VP8LP is calling CQ on 14071.3 khz now @ 00:54 UTC.
Fair sig into CT.
GO get him!
Joe
KA1PPV #1482
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------



Check out the 070 Club website at <http://www.podxs070.com/> for the latest information on 070 Club activities.



Yahoo! Groups Links



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





























Re: Falkland Isl

Jerry N9AVY
 

Not Falkland Is. .... Islas Malvinas,   Hi !   :-)

--- On Wed, 3/20/13, ljl2002@... <joe_molon@...> wrote:

From: ljl2002@... <joe_molon@...>
Subject: Re: [070] Falkland Isl
To: "070@..." <070@...>
Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 4:20 PM
















 









Joe,

 

  It was the first time that I ever saw Falkland but couldn't get through the pileup.  I figured that someone with more power might.

Oh well, next time.

GL 73

Joe

KA1PPV  #1482



From: Joseph Miller <kj8o.ham@...>

To: 070@...

Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:16 PM

Subject: Re: [070] Falkland Isl



Thanks Joe,



I heard him, no joy, maybe another day



73 de Joe KJ8O



On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 8:55 PM, ljl2002@... <joe_molon@...>wrote:



**
VP8LP is calling CQ on 14071.3 khz now @ 00:54 UTC.
Fair sig into CT.
GO get him!
Joe
KA1PPV #1482
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------



Check out the 070 Club website at <http://www.podxs070.com/> for the latest information on 070 Club activities.



Yahoo! Groups Links



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: Falkland Isl

ljl2002@att.net
 

Joe,
 
  It was the first time that I ever saw Falkland but couldn't get through the pileup.  I figured that someone with more power might.
Oh well, next time.
GL 73
Joe
KA1PPV  #1482

From: Joseph Miller <kj8o.ham@...>
To: 070@...
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: [070] Falkland Isl

Thanks Joe,

I heard him, no joy, maybe another day

73 de Joe KJ8O




On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 8:55 PM, ljl2002@... <joe_molon@...>wrote:

**


VP8LP is calling CQ on 14071.3 khz now @ 00:54 UTC.
Fair sig into CT.
GO get him!

Joe
KA1PPV #1482

 





------------------------------------

Check out the 070 Club website at <http://www.podxs070.com/> for the latest information on 070 Club activities.



Yahoo! Groups Links



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Welcome new members

J Budzowski <jbudzowski@...>
 

Pse welcome new 070 Club members Ray KG7AVF #1656 and Dave NU4N #1657...73 de Jay N3DQU


Re: Antenna Tuners

Jerry N9AVY
 

For the benefit of some of our less technical members, I'd like to say that antenna tuners don't actually tune the antenna.   All the tuner does is to try to match the 50 Ohm impedance of transmitter to what load the coax presents at the transmitter.  There have been some good articles on this subject but I can't recall just where they were.

To be truly effective a tuner would have to be mounted at the antenna feed point and remotely tuned. 

So, an antenna tuner is actually fooling the transmitter into thinking it's seeing a 50 ohm impedance and makes the transmitter happy.  It's really a feedline matcher.

Jerry  N9AVY

















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: Antenna Tuners

Mike Miller <mike.kc9doa@...>
 

Hi Mark,

I have the 993B and it will tune my 80m OCFD on 160m, but the
loss is so high that my modified 6BTV out performs it hands down
on 160m. The 993B does allow the 6BTV to work a much wider slice
of 160m than I could without it. On 80-10m, the 993B OCFD combo
seems to work reasonably well.

I also have the MFJ-5124K tuner interface that makes the TS-2000
think it has a Kenwood tuner attached. It makes tuning easier
but it isn't mandatory.

The 993B is the only auto tuner I've used, so I can't really say
how it compares with the others on the market.

73
Mike kc9doa

On 19 Mar 2013 at 18:01, Mark Crosbie wrote:

I am running a TS-2000 in the shack. But mine will not tune my
windom on
160M, or 30M. I have been running a Diamond SX-600 meter, and a
loaned
Dentron Jr. Monitor Tuner. I am looking to replace this with
either the
MFJ-993B, or the LDG KT-100. I would like some user input on
these two
tuners. Pro's, Con's, other recommendations.

-


73,

N8MNI
Mark Crosbie
London, Ohio
PODXS 070# 0525
PODXS Clubhouse Barkeep
PODXS Reflector Boss


Subscribe to 070

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com <http://us.groups.yahoo.com/>


Subscribe to 070_contest

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com <http://us.groups.yahoo.com/>







------------------------------------

Check out the 070 Club website at <http://www.podxs070.com/>
for the latest information on 070 Club activities.



Yahoo! Groups Links



Antenna

Larry
 

Dan,
20-10 are my main interest too. I have a friend I need 80 for, and 160 is just an experiment right now.
If the 53'er works well I may get a 39'er, I want to work 'APE' one year.
Larry

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: Annoying things on PSK

Mike Miller <mike.kc9doa@...>
 

I'll admit to making that mistake a few times. I use FLDigi and
and if I forget to clear the log, I'll call the last call I
worked instead of the station I'm trying to answer. The other
error I make, is to forget to enter the call of the station I'm
answering and just send my call. That's not so bad. To err is
human.

73
Mike kc9doa

On 19 Mar 2013 at 14:14, Jerry wrote:

The other day I was calling CQ on a frequency for quite a while
and had a
station call me with a Chinese call and then his call.� Went
back with
another CQ and he answered with my call and his call. Maybe a
mistake ?
Can't say for sure.� It often seems like people don't read
what's on
their screen.


Re: Annoying things on PSK

cessnaflyer42
 

A few thoughts:

Personally, I try to give out a reasonable approximation of a true signal report. And I'd want to get that in return. I'm not sure why the stigma against giving or getting a low signal strength. I do a lot of JT65 (a fun mode, if you've never tried it), and it has the dubious distinction of having the most accurate signal reports in all of ham radio. Do I get upset when I get a "-22" signal report instead of a "-5"? Heck no! I think to myself, "Ha! Look how little power I needed to communicate with that other station!" (Or, "Dang, all that power and that's how little signal arrived? Good thing JT65 works so well, or else this QSO might not have happened!") I'd be perfectly happy to get a PSK31 report of 519, because what does it matter how strong the signal is if the copy is good? A 391, though, and you'd better let me know what's wrong!

And on that subject, if anyone ever sent me a screenshot of what my PSK31 signal, I'd be ecstatic! As was mentioned, I don't know what my signal looks like unless the other station tells me, and a picture is worth 1000 words.

And I'll throw in my 2 cents on names: I use HRD+DM780, and my name field auto-populates. Sometimes it's correct (or it's enough to help me verify that I decoded the Call or Name correctly), but when it's not, I try to use the VERY SIMPLE method HRD+DM780 offers to update it from the decoded text so that I call the other guy by his preferred name. This is something of a sensitive issue for me, although I think I have the opposite of the Jonathan/Craig problem: my legal, given name is James, which is what I go by, but many hams try to shorten it to Jim (even when it means overriding the database or what I've sent).

Keep up the good operating, my 070 friends!

73 de NF8I,

~James


Re: Antenna Tuners

al7013
 

Mark

I have an it 100 and it probably could tune a coat hanger I also have a z11 pro 2 at the base of my vertical in an ammo box and I am very pleased with both LDG tuners and the support group on yahoo is very active

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 19, 2013, at 6:01 PM, "Mark Crosbie" <N8MNI@...> wrote:

I am running a TS-2000 in the shack. But mine will not tune my windom on
160M, or 30M. I have been running a Diamond SX-600 meter, and a loaned
Dentron Jr. Monitor Tuner. I am looking to replace this with either the
MFJ-993B, or the LDG KT-100. I would like some user input on these two
tuners. Pro's, Con's, other recommendations.

-

73,

N8MNI
Mark Crosbie
London, Ohio
PODXS 070# 0525
PODXS Clubhouse Barkeep
PODXS Reflector Boss

Subscribe to 070

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com <http://us.groups.yahoo.com/>

Subscribe to 070_contest

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com <http://us.groups.yahoo.com/>




Re: Antenna Tuners

cessnaflyer42
 

I love my LDG tuner! I had the Z11ProII when I was running barefoot, and I liked it so well, when I bought an amp, I upgraded the tuner to an AT-1000ProII. The LDGs need no rig interface (although you can interface them with certain rigs). They just work!

Good luck!

73 de NF8I,

~James


Re: Falkland Isl

Joseph Miller <kj8o.ham@...>
 

Thanks Joe,

I heard him, no joy, maybe another day

73 de Joe KJ8O




On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 8:55 PM, ljl2002@... <joe_molon@...>wrote:

**


VP8LP is calling CQ on 14071.3 khz now @ 00:54 UTC.
Fair sig into CT.
GO get him!

Joe
KA1PPV #1482



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Falkland Isl

ljl2002@att.net
 

VP8LP is calling CQ on 14071.3 khz now @ 00:54 UTC.
Fair sig into CT.
GO get him!

Joe
KA1PPV #1482


Re: Annoying things on PSK

Jerry N9AVY
 

Keep in mind that the old DXers definition of a vertical is  "an antenna that radiates equally poor in all directions " !   :-)

Jerry

--- On Tue, 3/19/13, ljl2002@... <joe_molon@...> wrote:

From: ljl2002@... <joe_molon@...>
Subject: Re: [070] Re: Annoying things on PSK
To: "070@..." <070@...>
Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2013, 7:06 PM
















 









Darin,

 

I operate at extremely low power levels so if another station were only being received at 347 here they would never hear me on the other end.  A good majority of my contacts are made with someone with a beam on the other end, hence a true 599.  There have been a few occasions where I have been able to exchange lower RSQ's but not many.

 

Joe

KA1PPV  #1482



From: ve3oij <ve3oij@...>

To: 070@...

Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 7:17 PM

Subject: [070] Re: Annoying things on PSK



 



--- In mailto:070%40yahoogroups.com, "my_call_is_ac4m" <ac4m@...> wrote:

Annoying things to me is giving a 599 report for EVERYONE! What is
the use of giving a 599 if it has no meaning,


For years, I've been wondering why we bother with signal reports. Whether it's contests or casual QSO, rarely does anyone bother to give an accurate signal report on digital. It's more common on CW or SSB, but even there the number of "59" grossly exceeds what I think are realistic expectations of signal reports.



The only way, it seems, to get an accurate signal report is explicitly to ask for one. Otherwise, it's simply a meaningless box that people fill out because it makes an "official" QSO.



I've been on digital modes for 7 years now, and in that time I've seen far too many people get annoyed/angry when you tell them that their signal is, in fact, 591 because it's 400 Hz wide on PSK31, or that it's 339 fading in and out of the QSB. I used to give out accurate signal reports. In fact, sometimes I'd even send a little screen shot of your signal on my waterfall. But proper reports were "not appreciated," let alone supporting evidence, and I gave up.



So for most people I give out 599 unless you ask for a proper report, then I'm happy to oblige. Also, if I remember your call and know that you actually care about it then I will as well. Generally if I recognize an 070 or 30MDG member call I give a proper report, but there's so many of you now :) Otherwise, it's just a macro field.



I can understand this practice in contest or working a DXpedition,


I can't understand why we give them out at all if nobody really cares - it's wasting air time on a practice that has been superseded by time and technology... a quaint old practice. On DXpeditions, it's especially egregious: everyone knows full well that almost nobody is actually 59 to a DXpedition, so why bother giving out 59? Who is kidding whom?



Personally, I like to know if I'm putting out a weak or crappy signal, but I've simply given up hope of finding out. Or my signal is always totally awesome, which I highly doubt. Sorry to all if that sounds cynical, but I don't see how swimming against this particular current improves my amateur radio experience - or yours for that matter. Maybe we're just seeing a general change and it's time to drop the obligatory signal report, just like we stopped having to wear ties to work.



73 de VE3OIJ

-Darin































[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: Annoying things on PSK

ljl2002@att.net
 

Darin,
 
I operate at extremely low power levels so if another station were only being received at 347 here they would never hear me on the other end.  A good majority of my contacts are made with someone with a beam on the other end, hence a true 599.  There have been a few occasions where I have been able to exchange lower RSQ's but not many.
 
Joe
KA1PPV  #1482

From: ve3oij <ve3oij@...>
To: 070@...
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 7:17 PM
Subject: [070] Re: Annoying things on PSK

 

--- In mailto:070%40yahoogroups.com, "my_call_is_ac4m" <ac4m@...> wrote:

Annoying things to me is giving a 599 report for EVERYONE! What is
the use of giving a 599 if it has no meaning,
For years, I've been wondering why we bother with signal reports. Whether it's contests or casual QSO, rarely does anyone bother to give an accurate signal report on digital. It's more common on CW or SSB, but even there the number of "59" grossly exceeds what I think are realistic expectations of signal reports.

The only way, it seems, to get an accurate signal report is explicitly to ask for one. Otherwise, it's simply a meaningless box that people fill out because it makes an "official" QSO.

I've been on digital modes for 7 years now, and in that time I've seen far too many people get annoyed/angry when you tell them that their signal is, in fact, 591 because it's 400 Hz wide on PSK31, or that it's 339 fading in and out of the QSB. I used to give out accurate signal reports. In fact, sometimes I'd even send a little screen shot of your signal on my waterfall. But proper reports were "not appreciated," let alone supporting evidence, and I gave up.

So for most people I give out 599 unless you ask for a proper report, then I'm happy to oblige. Also, if I remember your call and know that you actually care about it then I will as well. Generally if I recognize an 070 or 30MDG member call I give a proper report, but there's so many of you now :) Otherwise, it's just a macro field.

I can understand this practice in contest or working a DXpedition,
I can't understand why we give them out at all if nobody really cares - it's wasting air time on a practice that has been superseded by time and technology... a quaint old practice. On DXpeditions, it's especially egregious: everyone knows full well that almost nobody is actually 59 to a DXpedition, so why bother giving out 59? Who is kidding whom?

Personally, I like to know if I'm putting out a weak or crappy signal, but I've simply given up hope of finding out. Or my signal is always totally awesome, which I highly doubt. Sorry to all if that sounds cynical, but I don't see how swimming against this particular current improves my amateur radio experience - or yours for that matter. Maybe we're just seeing a general change and it's time to drop the obligatory signal report, just like we stopped having to wear ties to work.

73 de VE3OIJ
-Darin




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: Annoying things on PSK

Jerry N9AVY
 

I really have to agree with this.  Besides the obligatory "599", there's also the IMHO the worthless IMD reports and sometimes even S meter reports. Really  ???  All I care about is making the contact. I hear him , he hears me and maybe we chat a bit.  If anyone really wants an honest signal report, I'll give it to them, BUT they gotta ask !

As far as using macros, I will sometimes type ahead while I semi-watching the screen.  I use macros a lot because many QSO's are repetitive to the point of being boring.  I have a couple macros where I can add extra stuff and look somewhat conversational.  When I ran HRD, there were several sets of macros I could plug in where needed and I think I fooled many into thinking I was a decent typist !

There is a place for macros, but they need to be used wisely.  I type with one finger each hand... never took typing in school because it wasn't "cool".  Wish I could have foreseen the future of computers in everyday life.  So, I muddle along as best I can. Also I have a touch of arthritis in fingers and macros keep the pain level minimal.

Amateur code of conduct ?  Yup, still good after 85 years !


Jerry  N9AVY

--- On Tue, 3/19/13, ve3oij <ve3oij@...> wrote:

From: ve3oij <ve3oij@...>
Subject: [070] Re: Annoying things on PSK
To: 070@...
Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2013, 6:17 PM
















 











--- In 070@..., "my_call_is_ac4m" <ac4m@...> wrote:

Annoying things to me is giving a 599 report for EVERYONE! What is
the use of giving a 599 if it has no meaning,


For years, I've been wondering why we bother with signal reports. Whether it's contests or casual QSO, rarely does anyone bother to give an accurate signal report on digital. It's more common on CW or SSB, but even there the number of "59" grossly exceeds what I think are realistic expectations of signal reports.



The only way, it seems, to get an accurate signal report is explicitly to ask for one. Otherwise, it's simply a meaningless box that people fill out because it makes an "official" QSO.



I've been on digital modes for 7 years now, and in that time I've seen far too many people get annoyed/angry when you tell them that their signal is, in fact, 591 because it's 400 Hz wide on PSK31, or that it's 339 fading in and out of the QSB. I used to give out accurate signal reports. In fact, sometimes I'd even send a little screen shot of your signal on my waterfall. But proper reports were "not appreciated," let alone supporting evidence, and I gave up.



So for most people I give out 599 unless you ask for a proper report, then I'm happy to oblige. Also, if I remember your call and know that you actually care about it then I will as well. Generally if I recognize an 070 or 30MDG member call I give a proper report, but there's so many of you now :) Otherwise, it's just a macro field.



I can understand this practice in contest or working a DXpedition,


I can't understand why we give them out at all if nobody really cares - it's wasting air time on a practice that has been superseded by time and technology... a quaint old practice. On DXpeditions, it's especially egregious: everyone knows full well that almost nobody is actually 59 to a DXpedition, so why bother giving out 59? Who is kidding whom?



Personally, I like to know if I'm putting out a weak or crappy signal, but I've simply given up hope of finding out. Or my signal is always totally awesome, which I highly doubt. Sorry to all if that sounds cynical, but I don't see how swimming against this particular current improves my amateur radio experience - or yours for that matter. Maybe we're just seeing a general change and it's time to drop the obligatory signal report, just like we stopped having to wear ties to work.



73 de VE3OIJ

-Darin



























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]