Elecraft

Elecraft CW Net cancellation

Classic

List

Threaded

49 messages Options

123

John Ragle

Re: Elecraft CW Net cancellation

Prompted by some of the comments about contests and complaints under
this topic, I second this sentiment with a vengeance. As I have written
to the reflector before, I think these do not go very far toward
justifying the spectrum space that we have been given by the public, and
they mean that I simply have to shut down my HF operations when there is
a big contest weekend. (Fortunately, the VHF/UHF contests are more
neighborly.)

John Ragle -- W1ZI

/=====/

On 2/20/2012 1:34 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> As far as contests are concerned, I believe they are out of control, but that's
> MY opinion...

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

David Gilbert

Re: Elecraft CW Net cancellation

It seems to me that hams are voting on that topic through their
activity. The bands are pretty dead, relatively speaking, when there is
not a DXpedition or contest running. I'd love to see an SDR-type
application that records the total spectrum usage over the course of a
year and correlates that to contest activity, but I'll bet the
difference is astounding.

As others have stated, there is ... or should be ... room in our hobby
for all operating preferences, but if you want to drag the public
benefit into the picture I'd offer the opinion that crisp operating
practices learned in contesting beat casual roundtable chats with
friends hands down.

Dave AB7E

On 2/20/2012 12:25 AM, John Ragle wrote:

> Prompted by some of the comments about contests and complaints under
> this topic, I second this sentiment with a vengeance. As I have written
> to the reflector before, I think these do not go very far toward
> justifying the spectrum space that we have been given by the public, and
> they mean that I simply have to shut down my HF operations when there is
> a big contest weekend. (Fortunately, the VHF/UHF contests are more
> neighborly.)
>
> John Ragle -- W1ZI
>
> /=====/
>
> On 2/20/2012 1:34 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> As far as contests are concerned, I believe they are out of control, but that's
>> MY opinion...
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

David Pratt

Re: Elecraft CW Net cancellation

In a recent message, David Gilbert <[hidden email]> writes
>I'd offer the opinion that crisp operating
>practices learned in contesting beat casual roundtable chats with
>friends hands down.

"Crisp" they may be, but at least with roundtable chats you do get
genuine reports. This 5NN stuff really does put me off contests :-(

73
--
David G4DMP
Leeds, England, UK

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Guy, K2AV

Re: Elecraft CW Net cancellation

All of the loggers support real reports, the contest organizers have left
it in the exchange to possibly be used. Why doesn't it get used?

The participants voted 99.999% against it by refusal to use anything other
than 5NN Just about almost everyone just WANTS it that way.

The most popular contest in the world? The CQWWDX, where the only real
exchange is the call sign. The huge majority of zones are known when the
call sign is correct. The only other thing sent is ENN for 599. You can
get run rates up into the 200's in the CQWW.

It's not that contesters don't want to send you a real signal report. They
don't want to send you any signal report AT ALL. For some folks a real
signal report would be SO d**ned discouraging. Really mess with your head.
Gotta believe, so you'll get on and stay on, that your signal is good
enough that ANYONE with a decent RX can copy you, even on 160 where most TX
antenna systems are cr*p because the counterpoise or radial systems are so
really very bad.

Worry about the radial system efficiency some other time besides the
contest. BELIEVE anyone can hear you and get on and give the guys with the
RX a CHANCE at digging your 239 signal out of the muck. 5NN NC, and give
the next guy a chance to dig out your 239 signal, and the next. THEY ARE
HAPPY that they can put your 239 (aka 5NN) signal in the log because maybe
they dig out your call in spite of your signal and the next guy doesn't.
That's putting daylight between his score and the next guy's.

BTW, the last contest non-5NN signal report I gave someone, was someone in
CW test who sounded like their DC power supply had gone AC on them, and had
a ferocious buzz up and down. Feller before me told him in English, which
he maybe did not understand since he was a PY. I sent him RST 561. Had to
repeat it four times before he QSL'd the report. 561 NC 561 NC.
561 NC?? QSL 561 NC QSL QSL RR TU
Buzz Biz Buzz Biz Buzz Buzz Biz Buzz...

73, Guy.

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 3:14 AM, David Pratt <[hidden email]>wrote:

> In a recent message, David Gilbert <[hidden email]> writes
> >I'd offer the opinion that crisp operating
> >practices learned in contesting beat casual roundtable chats with
> >friends hands down.
>
> "Crisp" they may be, but at least with roundtable chats you do get
> genuine reports. This 5NN stuff really does put me off contests :-(
>
> 73
> --
> David G4DMP
> Leeds, England, UK
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

John Ragle

Re: Elecraft CW Net cancellation

In reply to this post by kevinr@coho.net

Since when do pre-programmed memory buttons and logging software
constitute "crisp operating practices?"

In the case of actual public service, observing net protocol and careful
listening/transmitting are the important factors, along with
properly-prepared emergency hardware.

I am not opposed to contests per se, but when the calendar is completely
dominated by this kind of activity, I think it is "out of control," as
N5GE observes.

It is a pity that the Elecraft CW net had to be cancelled because QRM
from contests would have overwhelmed it.

John Ragle -- W1ZI

/=====/

On 2/20/2012 3:08 AM, David Gilbert wrote:

> <snip>...I'd offer the opinion that crisp operating
> practices learned in contesting beat casual roundtable chats with
> friends hands down...<end snip>
>
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>
> On 2/20/2012 12:25 AM, John Ragle wrote:
>> Prompted by some of the comments about contests and complaints under
>> this topic, I second this sentiment with a vengeance. As I have written
>> to the reflector before, I think these do not go very far toward
>> justifying the spectrum space that we have been given by the public, and
>> they mean that I simply have to shut down my HF operations when there is
>> a big contest weekend. (Fortunately, the VHF/UHF contests are more
>> neighborly.)
>>
>> John Ragle -- W1ZI
>>
>> /=====/
>>
>> On 2/20/2012 1:34 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>> As far as contests are concerned, I believe they are out of control,
>>> but that's
>>> MY opinion...

alsopb

Re: Elecraft CW Net cancellation

Why are contests so popular? Think of three factors:
1) Competition and station performance testing.
2) Weekends are the only time may people get to operate much. The
desire is to make a lot of contacts.
3) Rag chewing in the everyday world has gone the way of speeches vs
tweets. So short exchanges are ingrained these days.

They are a fact of life. Get used to them. Still better join the fun.
Alternatively, there are contest free bands available 24/7 7 days per
week. Of course, complaining is a good pasttime too.

I really don't think the contest exchanges is any less meaningful that
the brag tapes sent these day in the digital modes. Who cares about the
other guy's dog's DNA.

73 DE Brian/K3KO

On 2/20/2012 12:50, John Ragle wrote:

> Since when do pre-programmed memory buttons and logging software
> constitute "crisp operating practices?"
>
> In the case of actual public service, observing net protocol and careful
> listening/transmitting are the important factors, along with
> properly-prepared emergency hardware.
>
> I am not opposed to contests per se, but when the calendar is completely
> dominated by this kind of activity, I think it is "out of control," as
> N5GE observes.
>
> It is a pity that the Elecraft CW net had to be cancelled because QRM
> from contests would have overwhelmed it.
>
> John Ragle -- W1ZI
>
> /=====/
>
> On 2/20/2012 3:08 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
>> <snip>...I'd offer the opinion that crisp operating
>> practices learned in contesting beat casual roundtable chats with
>> friends hands down...<end snip>
>>
>> Dave AB7E
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/20/2012 12:25 AM, John Ragle wrote:
>>> Prompted by some of the comments about contests and complaints under
>>> this topic, I second this sentiment with a vengeance. As I have written
>>> to the reflector before, I think these do not go very far toward
>>> justifying the spectrum space that we have been given by the public, and
>>> they mean that I simply have to shut down my HF operations when there is
>>> a big contest weekend. (Fortunately, the VHF/UHF contests are more
>>> neighborly.)
>>>
>>> John Ragle -- W1ZI
>>>
>>> /=====/
>>>
>>> On 2/20/2012 1:34 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>> As far as contests are concerned, I believe they are out of control,
>>>> but that's
>>>> MY opinion...

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4821 - Release Date: 02/20/12

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Ted Bryant

Re: Elecraft CW Net cancellation

In reply to this post by John Ragle

"...It is a pity that the Elecraft CW net had to be cancelled because QRM
from contests would have overwhelmed it..."

In keeping with the emergency preparedness aspects of this, doesn't the net
have a backup frequency for just such occasions as this? The WARC bands are
contest-free.

(Or...could it be that the cancellation was more due to most of the net
members playing in the contest?)

Ted W4NZ

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of John Ragle
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 7:50 AM
To: elecraft
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Elecraft CW Net cancellation

Since when do pre-programmed memory buttons and logging software
constitute "crisp operating practices?"

In the case of actual public service, observing net protocol and careful
listening/transmitting are the important factors, along with
properly-prepared emergency hardware.

I am not opposed to contests per se, but when the calendar is completely
dominated by this kind of activity, I think it is "out of control," as
N5GE observes.

It is a pity that the Elecraft CW net had to be cancelled because QRM
from contests would have overwhelmed it.

John Ragle -- W1ZI

/=====/

On 2/20/2012 3:08 AM, David Gilbert wrote:

KEN-3

Re: Elecraft CW Net cancellation

In reply to this post by daleputnam

On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:26 PM, Dale Putnam wrote:

> SPECIFICALLY the Elecraft line, if you can hear the other station.. he's already 5nn, or you wouldn't be answering his call.

NOT TRUE. I had a QRP station call me and I had severe trouble reading him. I responded with a RST 229 229 ... 73 .... AR

Just because it's a K3 doesn't magically make all signals Q-5. A K3 may make some signals a Q-4, maybe make some Q-2 signals a Q-4, but not every signal is a Q5. At least some of us still have the abilities to work a Q-3 or Q-4 signal, hi hi.

Ken WA8JXM

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

KEN-3

Re: The Old RST

In reply to this post by Buddy Brannan

Interesting his, thanks for sharing. My comments are below:
On Feb 19, 2012, at 11:02 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
>
>
> I have always preferred what the commercial CW operators used, the QSA
> report. QSA1 for audible but unreadable to QSA5 for perfect copy. The QSA
> report considered both the strength and the 'copyability' of the signal. A
> huge signal but a lousy "fist" might merit a QSA2.

Well there is always QLF ;-)

>
>
> It's been nearly a century since the T report had any meaning, yet we Hams
> still use it.

I have recently heard some T7 or T8 signals on the air as well as a 579C. Yes, it's rare, thankfully, but no reason to give up the ability to report.

73, Ken
WA8JXM

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

KEN-3

Re: The Old RST

In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4

On Feb 19, 2012, at 11:12 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

> Both would certainly merit
> other than "T9" reports. Of course, both were getting the canned "5NN"
> reports ...

Which goes to my complaint about everything being a 599.

Ken WA8JXM
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

KEN-3

Re: Elecraft CW Net cancellation

In reply to this post by alsopb

On Feb 20, 2012, at 8:11 AM, Brian Alsop wrote:
>
> 3) Rag chewing in the everyday world has gone the way of speeches vs
> tweets. So short exchanges are ingrained these days.

YMMV. My typical digital mode QSO is 30-60+ minutes. My CW contacts are typically 20-40 minutes.

I suspect that this is not a new phenomena, the RCC certificate has been around for many generations. I assume it originated to encourage more than just a contest type exchange.

>
> I really don't think the contest exchanges is any less meaningful that
> the brag tapes sent these day in the digital modes. Who cares about the
> other guy's dog's DNA.

I will agree with you there. I could care less about which subrelease of the O/S or application he is using.

As for contests, I have no problem with contests if they either:

1- were restricted to a portion of the band, allowing non contest people to share the band
2- were careful to avoid interfering with non-contest QSOs

Ken WA8JXM

>
> 73 DE Brian/K3KO
>
> On 2/20/2012 12:50, John Ragle wrote:
>> Since when do pre-programmed memory buttons and logging software
>> constitute "crisp operating practices?"
>>
>> In the case of actual public service, observing net protocol and careful
>> listening/transmitting are the important factors, along with
>> properly-prepared emergency hardware.
>>
>> I am not opposed to contests per se, but when the calendar is completely
>> dominated by this kind of activity, I think it is "out of control," as
>> N5GE observes.
>>
>> It is a pity that the Elecraft CW net had to be cancelled because QRM
>> from contests would have overwhelmed it.

Matthew Pitts

Re: Elecraft CW Net cancellation

In reply to this post by kevinr@coho.net

Maybe it's because not all Elecraft rigs have the WARC bands available, and the net control operator doesn't want to leave those users out.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

K2GN

Re: Elecraft CW Net cancellation

In reply to this post by John Ragle

>>>W1ZI wrote:
It is a pity that the Elecraft CW net had to be cancelled because QRM from
contests would have overwhelmed it.
John Ragle -- W1ZI
====================================================
I agree with John to a certain extent. I am not a CW OP but the K3 is
certainly converting me.
In CW contest I do strictly a S&P(Search and Pounce for those that don't
contest).
This means a lot of tuning. With hearing that is getting old and subject to
poor hearing in noisy situations, I tuned across MANY holes big enough for a
CW NET. All you have to do is use the capabilities of you radio, SHIFT,
WIDTH, FILTERS, and you can operate in a small bandwidth. The high end of
the CW portion of the bands aren't that crowded.
And there's the WARC bands sitting there doing almost nothing!!!
So come guys, used your heads and your radios to their full capabilities and
there shouldn't be a problem.

I'd like to thank Elecraft for making a me a better CW contester, DXer and
even RAG CHEWER (Although with a Keyboard).

Larry/K2GN - http://k2gn.com
K3 S/Ns - 3278, 4086 P3 S/Ns - 51, 1814 KPA-500 - S/N 27
KAT500(s) to come soon.

/=====/

On 2/20/2012 3:08 AM, David Gilbert wrote:

> <snip>...I'd offer the opinion that crisp operating practices learned
> in contesting beat casual roundtable chats with friends hands
> down...<end snip>
>
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>
> On 2/20/2012 12:25 AM, John Ragle wrote:
>> Prompted by some of the comments about contests and complaints under
>> this topic, I second this sentiment with a vengeance. As I have
>> written to the reflector before, I think these do not go very far
>> toward justifying the spectrum space that we have been given by the
>> public, and they mean that I simply have to shut down my HF
>> operations when there is a big contest weekend. (Fortunately, the
>> VHF/UHF contests are more
>> neighborly.)
>>
>> John Ragle -- W1ZI
>>
>> /=====/
>>
>> On 2/20/2012 1:34 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>> As far as contests are concerned, I believe they are out of control,
>>> but that's MY opinion...

--
Sent from my lovely old Dell XPS 420

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Dave-7

Re: Elecraft CW Net cancellation

In reply to this post by John Ragle

What I don't understand is why anyone would be upset at the standard
'5NN' signal report.

Last time I checked the bands, signal strength varied. I know this
weekend I had to wait for a few stations to come up out of the noise.
A guy who is an honest 599 right now was an honest 539, or maybe even
an honest 519, a few minutes ago. So which of these is the supposedly
'honest' report? The one that really tells you what you sound like?
The one that lets you know how your setup is working? Given the
variability that occurs, 5NN is as honest and complete and informative
as any of the others. Everyone would rather hear 599 than 519 so why
not use that one?

Given the variability, I think contesters should use 'EEN', or 559,
since that is the approximate middle of the range. And it would be a
tad quicker.

What I find amusing is the rag chewer who gives the other guy a 599,
or begins his over with 'r r r', then asks for fills.

73 de dave
ab9ca/4

On 2/20/12 6:50 AM, John Ragle wrote:

Matthew Pitts

Re: Elecraft CW Net cancellation

In reply to this post by kevinr@coho.net

Why be upset with a 599? Because of that very same variability; it is highly unlikely that you will have exactly the same propagation to different parts of the world at the same time, so why should you accept the same report from all contacts without question?

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Paul VanOveren-2

Re: Elecraft CW Net cancellation

Does it really matter if the report is 559 or 599, the important part is
that you get the call sign CORRECT and the zone, country, serial # or
power. That is what the contest managers require, that you can copy all the
information correctly. As mentioned earlier, the 599 is more or less a
preamble to getting the power, country, or serial number, which is the
important part of the exchange in addition to the call sign. I could care
less, even during a non-contest qso what report the other station gives me
for a report, if he gets my call sign correct and maybe my name and qth, I
don't give a rip what his S meter reads.. What I do not understand is the
stations that run at 50+ wpm. Many of us that run at 25-30 wpm simply bypass
them and go on to someone we can copy on the first time. I guess that there
are the "top notch" ops that can copy at 50+ but eventually they are going
to have worked all/most of them and my thinking is that perhaps they might
work more stations by slowing down a bit..YOMV.

Paul NF8J

Why be upset with a 599? Because of that very same variability; it is highly
unlikely that you will have exactly the same propagation to different parts
of the world at the same time, so why should you accept the same report from
all contacts without question?

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

David Gilbert

Re: Elecraft CW Net cancellation

In reply to this post by David Pratt

Look at it this way. There are several contests without a signal report
at all in the exchange. Do they bother you? I suspect not, or at least
they wouldn't if you were a contester because you'd be following the
rules of that contest and all you'd care about is optimizing your score
like you would in any other competitive endeavor.

If a contest exchange happened to require that everyone send the
abbreviation of the contest ("CQWPX" for example), would that bother
you? It might not have any practical value and it would be arbitrarily
annoying to most participants, but if the contest sponsors had their
reason for requiring it what's the problem? I don't see any difference
in the case of "599" ... we all agree it's meaningless but as I've
already described there are fairly easily understood reasons why it is
still a requirement. I don't see why that should put you off except for
the fact that you can't disassociate it from it's use in an entirely
different context.

If we had a dictionary of ham radio terms "599" would have two entries
something like this:

a. adj ... a rating used to describe signal readability, strength, and
signal quality in conversational contacts

b. noun ... a placeholder in the required exchange for many contests

73,
Dave AB7E

On 2/20/2012 1:14 AM, David Pratt wrote:
> In a recent message, David Gilbert <[hidden email]> writes
>> I'd offer the opinion that crisp operating
>> practices learned in contesting beat casual roundtable chats with
>> friends hands down.
>
> "Crisp" they may be, but at least with roundtable chats you do get
> genuine reports. This 5NN stuff really does put me off contests :-(
>
> 73
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

gdaught6

Re: Elecraft CW Net cancellation

In reply to this post by alsopb

Brian wrote:

< snip >

> Of course, complaining is a good pasttime too.

Chuckle! As I age, I'm finding this to be true. But my K3-P3
combination can be counted on to cheer me up!

73,

George T Daughters, K6GT
CU in the California QSO Party (CQP)
October 6-7, 2012

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Dave-7

Re: Elecraft CW Net cancellation

In reply to this post by Matthew Pitts

My point would be that signal reports are meaningless, period.

No matter what the other stations sends, you have no idea what you
sound like over there. All you know is he can hear you well enough to
copy most of what you are sending.

The only truly honest report one could give would be 'your signal
strength varies with condx, in 12 hours i feel sure i will not be able
to hear you on this band, however i can copy you, at least partially,
right now' . . . but I think we'd all agree that is bit long to send,
even for rag chewing.

And anyway, signal reports say a lot more about propagation than they
do about your station.

73 de dave
ab9ca/4

On 2/20/12 10:42 AM, Matthew Pitts wrote:

> Why be upset with a 599? Because of that very same variability; it is
> highly unlikely that you will have exactly the same propagation to
> different parts of the world at the same time, so why should you
> accept the same report from all contacts without question?
>
> Matthew Pitts
> N8OHU
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>

alsopb

Re: Elecraft CW Net cancellation

In reply to this post by Matthew Pitts

It isn't a signal report. It is really a place holder to let your brain
know that what follows you have to copy. Even digital systems have a
"wake up stupid" function.

73 de Brian/K3KO

On 2/20/2012 16:42, Matthew Pitts wrote:
> Why be upset with a 599? Because of that very same variability; it is highly unlikely that you will have exactly the same propagation to different parts of the world at the same time, so why should you accept the same report from all contacts without question?
>
> Matthew Pitts
> N8OHU
>
>
>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4821 - Release Date: 02/20/12

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

123