CW Band Usage
Bill Clarke (W2BLC)
on
November 9, 2003
View comments about this article!
This evening I sent the following email to the ARRL.
ARRL Staff:
Tonight I tuned from 3500 to 3700 kHz and noted all the activity. This was done at 7:45 PM East Coast time. The results:
1 CW qso in the Extra CW portion
7 CW qsos in the remainder of the frequency span
1 digital qso in the remainder of the band
9 total QSOs in all that area. And, these QSOs were all of the type referred to as spectrum efficient (narrow band).
I then tuned from 3800 to 4000 and there were so many QSOs and nets that I could not count them accurately. Many are so crowded together frequency wise, that they interfere with one another.
It appears to me that the so called CW band is a vast wasteland of virtually unused radio spectrum that should be opened to the large number of SSB/AM users - with a small segment placed into reserve for CW/digital activity.
There is just no way all this spectrum, from 3500 to 3700 can be justified under its current usage.
I certainly would be interested in hearing the League's views on this matter.
end of email..............
Is there anyone else out there wondering about this issue? If so, perhaps it would be a good time to let the League know how you feel.
If not, perhaps there is a commercial entity that will eventually notice this unused spectrum and purchase it from the government at an auction. Then, the CW and digital operators will share the crowded voice bands with us.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W0UCE on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
One check of any band segment from a single receiving station location does not verify band activity.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W8MW on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bill, you heard more 80 meter activity than I usually do. My count is typically one American QSO for every 50 kHz of spectrum. Standard responses to every discussion about refarming 80 meters:
(Defensive Posture) It was just a matter of time until the no-coders want to take away the CW bands. We gotta take a stand and by golly we ain't budging a single kHz no matter what.
(Truth in Advertising) Everything is FB anyway. There are thousands of QSOs on 80. You just can't hear them.
(Radio Museum) Even if hundreds of kHz are going unused most of the time, this space should be held as a quiet and safe zone for CW and Data operations.
(Pure Optimism) SSB crowding will cause more people to operate CW and eventually use those wide open 80 meter frequencies.
(Spectrum Efficiency) It's in amateur radio's best interests to reduce SSB bandspace and encourage narrow spectrum modes.
(Poster Profile) Doesn't actually operate 80 or even listen to 80, but knows what's best anyway.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by AB7RG on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Perhaps the lack of dirty splattering signals (such as many found in the phone portions of the band) just make the CW segment sound quieter...
73 Clinton AB7RG
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KD3JF on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Bill... I want you to think about a couple of things..... You said 7:45PM How long? One minute?? It is now 8:45AM on East coast and I did not hear one signal from 14.000 to 14.350. Do we need to get rid of 20 meters because I heard no signals at 8:45AM. Did you listen while the Northern Lights were visible.
I am trying to say that your test was very unprofessionable. How about setting up your radio to scan 3500 - 3700 for a few days and night? That would be more of a good test, don't you think! Try listening between 2-4AM you might be surprised.
Paul Gates, KD3JF
kd3jf@arrl.net
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by NY7Q on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Thats all YOU could hear. What antenna?? what rig??? You are a FOOL to think the CW portions of bands are not BZ. Maybe alot of people were eating dinner, and maybe propagation to your station was bad...Who KNOWS. I dont agree with you at all.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by WA2DTW on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A slippery slope. First having a no-code license to begin with, then allowing no-coders access to HF, then reducing the CW subbands, then eliminating them.
The prospect of curtailing CW subbands is probably the primary reason for opposition to no-coders on HF. Imagine when the phone bands get super-saturated, there will be even more pressure on CW subbands.
CW is the heart and soul of ham radio. Let's leave it alone.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by N8UZE on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
At 7:45pm Eastern, the band has not yet stretched out and all you will hear are the local SSB nets. But later at night, there is plenty of cross country and international CW (as well as SSB).
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by FJGH on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why have cw and phone subbands???????? If all spectrum was available to all users regardless of mode, the total spectrum would be utilized more efficiently.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is an extremely good point to bring forward to the ARRL. I have been monitoring the CW-only portions of all our HF bands for years and the inactivity has been a total waste.
Most of the time, I was actually HOPING for activity because I often long for the times back 30 years ago when I had a novice ticket and had such a good time on CW. But that has changed amongst other things, most for the better.
As one ham commented, only 1 night of monitoring is not a sufficient sample, but everyone knows, the "samples" have been numerous, have been made by many hams over many years and the activity in CW only portions has been nil to zilch. I would not be a bit surprised if someday we lose this band space to some SW braodcast or other service - and it might well be justified, unless we get our act together and use band space wisely and in a way that is more appropriate for the times and for the vast majority of everyone's needs. I've accepted that this is not 1973 anymore and those years were fun but are history. Let's get on with the 21st century.......
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by VE2CU on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Bill, I think you're on the wrong track.
Do you have an efficient antenna? Allow me to doubt.
Have you considered the current issues with propagation?
Have YOU used or at least called CQ on the 80m CW segment?
Have YOU listened, let alone PARTICIPATED, in the recent ARRL CW Sweepstake? Hundreds of CW contesters on 80 alone, not to mention the hundreds of other CW contests...
Have YOU listened or participed to at least 1 CW NTS net?
Have you listened to the numerous CW "pile-ups" on 80, when a rare entity shows up?
Why does the ARRL still send CW practices?
And I could go on and on...
Let's leave the CW segments alone, it's quiet, efficient and still fun to use that mode. 73's
Michel VE2CU
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by K0BG on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Regardless of the ARRL, here are my predictions for the next 5 years.
1). BPL will indeed be implimented. Big money will see to that.
2). CW testing will go away for all license classes with the possible exception of the Extra class.
3). The CW portions of the respective HF bands will be replaced with an ARRL sponsored band plan (just like phone is today).
4). Riley Hollingsworth will retire and be replaced by someone we will all love to hate (ala Howard Cosell).
5). There will be over 1 million hams and the majority won't have a clue, therefore assuring a long life for eham.net.
Alan, KØBG
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W8OB on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Wow I just checked the outside temp and its only 18f right now. Kind of cold to be out trolling, but are you catching anythings yet?????? On the other hand this morning I tuned from 3.8 to 4.0 and only heard 3 ssb stations on there so..... we should cut down on this wasted band space and open it up to digital modes.... Get real I am on 80 mostly every morning at a early hour and always find someone to contact in the cw subbands. Of course given the pee poor prop the last couple of months the whole damn band sounds dead now.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KD5QEF on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'll admit I don't work 80m, as yet, due to my antenna situation. However, on the subject of CW band-segments, I'm suspicious of allegations of "little activity". I think many people who "hear" nothing are either phone ops or people with poor receivers who dismiss any signals (or don't hear them) that fall below what they consider necessary for a contact. Using an Elecraft K2 that I built I have had several QSO's on CW in the 529/519 range. I've completed contacts where I had to put my ear a few inches from the speaker to make out the CW, and I'm 36 and have *very* good hearing. I often hear phone operators jump on 40m, 20m, 10m right on top of a CW QSO and (more often) on top of a QRP phone QSO!! Perhaps due to skip they can't hear it, but I've heard this happen so often and copied the calls of the stations, that I know sometimes that's not the case. Some people either A) don't listen carefully B) have a poor receiver or antenna (as in my case) or C) don't know that a CW QSO can successfully occur right above the noise-floor. The idea of re-allocating CW spectrum to phone so people can obliterate weak-signal CW and DX seems illogical to me. If phone ops are so hungry for bandwidth, they should make better use of the large swath of spectrum they have (AM, single-wideband, excessive power, splatter, etc.).
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W5EEX on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I tuned through the 3800-4000 Khz segment too...the language, immaturity, and stupidity I heard there in the short time I listened was justification to me for the SSB segment to be closed down. By the same token,
I listened to several CW QSO's (yes I can copy AND work CW) and heard discussions about antennas, rigs, QRP, weather, etc etc....geniune and meaningful ham discussions. I'll take the CW band segments any day and be happy to stay there.
73,
W5EEX
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Reduce CW subbands? Here-we-go! Tuning around 75 netted not much intelligence (some, but not much). Why don't we cut the phone allocation in half on 75, and give it to CW? Now, didn't that sound stupid? So did the first post in this thread...
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by N2NL on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I recommend you reconduct this experiment again during the last weekend of this month. Tell me then how many signals you find in the CW sub bands.
80 meters is somewhat unique there there is quite a bit of unused spectrum in the CW sub band. Maybe 3600 and up - but no lower than that. If you give a listen again at the end of the month, you'll find wall-to-wall CW signals from 3500-3580khz, and sometimes above.
What you propose is to eliminate a safe haven for many - a place where hams can work weak stations, using minimal power and minimal hardware; something which simply cannot often be done with phone.
It's much easier for a SSB operator to notch a CW signal, than for the CW op to eliminate the SSB. Just try operating CW on the low end of 40 in Asia.
Also, don't forget these CW sub bands are shared by digital modes as well - touted as the future of the hobby.
73, Dave N2NL
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W5EEX on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is likely that what W2BLC heard when he listened to the SSB segment was the splatter of overpowered
signals stepping on top of each other. The ops who work there typically tend to run "full gallon" output and crank it all the way up to be sure they are heard.....realize, it is important for all that bitching and moaning about politics, prescription drugs for seniors, how bad one's hemmoroids hurt today, band plan dicussions (ala this one), and killing off CW to be heard by those who want to listen to it. If all that crap was taken off the air, there would be more than enough clean and quiet spectrum in the SSB segments.
73 (again)
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by N5XM on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
There is plenty of activity on the CW sub-bands, enough that I've made twelve thousand CW contacts in 4 years with only wire antennas and I'm only one person. I'm putting a tower and beam up as we speak, and I expect to be amazed at how much more I will be able to hear and work. Try listening to 80m CW in the middle of the winter when the band is quieter. There are many times it is very hard to find a place to send CQ on 40m in the evening. Did you do your "survey" during the period of 9 coronal mass ejections? The QRN was 579 on 40m, how high do you think it was on 80m? I was tuning around 40m this morning, and there was so much digital activity I couldn't believe. Is there any reason these folks couldn't stay in the digital portion. Talk about following a Gentleman's agreement. These guys are already taking space away from us brass pounders. If you like CW, get on the air and maybe your local activity will increase.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Using the same argument that the author uses for 80m CW, I guess the 10m band could be condensed into 1/4 of its current space and the rest won't be missed due to the size of the band and the sparse usage of the band. How about condensing the 10m band - CW, digital, SSB, AM, FM simplex, FM repeaters, SSTV and satellites into 29.2 - 29.70 MHz, leaving the rest for an 11-meter expansion? Does this sound unreasonable? So does what W2BLC suggested. I sure hope that the ARRL doesn't take W2BLC's suggestion seriously.
The band plans should be left alone. Most of the other posters are correct. The sample that W2BLC did is not representitive or accurate of real usage.
FJGH's suggestion of eliminating bandplans altogether would bring nothing but chaos to all the bands. As N2NL said, "It's much easier for a SSB operator to notch a CW signal, than for the CW op to eliminate the SSB. Just try operating CW on the low end of 40 in Asia." SSB signals all over any band would make CW operation virtually impossible. SSB with a bandwidth of 3 KHz is a real hog. Add excessive power, excessive compression and overmodulation to that and you have one signal splattering over up to 50 KHz or more. Portions of bands set aside exclusively for CW use need to be protected.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N5XM said:
"I was tuning around 40m this morning, and there was so much digital activity I couldn't believe. Is there any reason these folks couldn't stay in the digital portion. Talk about following a Gentleman's agreement. These guys are already taking space away from us brass pounders. If you like CW, get on the air and maybe your local activity will increase."
There's a RTTY contest going on this weekend. I know it's wrong, but they've literally taken over the CW space for the weekend. Funny thing is I only hear this going on in the 40m band, and nowhere else. I noticed all the digital activity on 40m Friday night. CW ops will finally get the 40m CW sub band back tonight.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by WD2AGD on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
That time of night, even phone QSO's would be tough on 75M with all the noise. Did you check 20, or 40m? That time of night there's lots of DX to be had on 7050 and below....ever try it on 40m phone? It's near impossible that time of night, but on CW it's easy.
Have you listened to 80m CW during the daytime? It's pretty busy...try it.
It's rare to hear a phone or CW QSO on 10M at midnight. I guess that whole band should go too.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The 75 meter ops are the worst in the world. They send splatter and spurious signals throughout the band. They obviously have no technical competence or they would clean up their over modulated signal that they overdrive their amps with. Their conversations are void of any intelligent information. They sit around with their tinfoil hats on and discuss how aliens are taking over the country and that we never landed on the moon.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KF9Z on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Are you serious? Just because you do not hear activity at your location does not mean it is void of it. The CW sub-band may not always be fully utilized but neither is the phone portion of most bands during the day, for example. I can tune around on 15 meters most any weekday and hear only a handful of Q's. Oh wait...it must mean the band plan is not efficient. Maybe we should set aside more of that band for...nothing since nothing is most prevalent during the week. Wait! I have it! Lets give HF privileges to EVERYONE! Wow! That will sure fill up the bands! I cannot wait for that cluster! Then with the influx of phone operators we can eliminate all the CW sub-bands! Get real. You want a less crowded portion of the band try CW. But I forgot CW is a hindrance to getting in the hobby. How exclusionary of me.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by N8UZE on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Here is yet another very simple reason people may be missing the CW activity. They are simply tuning through the band too fast, or with too narrow a filter, or both. It's quite easy to miss a multitude of ongoing CW QSOs under these circumstances.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KC2JBB on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I never write in to these boards but for this I must. I worked hard to learn CW (I'm still pretty slow but I try hard to be a 'good operator'). I like CW. I am licensed to operate in the CW mode. Take this away from me or hinder me in any way and I will be madder than hell.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I figure, anyone who had a WN call, followed by a few more calls, has a pretty good idea of what they are talking about. Admittedly, there are some who have old calls, but weren’t active for many years, that seem to be way out in “left field”.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t make much sense any more to have the Novice sub band, if no one is going to use it.
Since the DX window is ridiculously small on 75, opening it by expanding the phone portion makes sense to me.
I doubt if expanding the phone portion will reduce the congestion on 75 though. It would however, allow a few more Qs to occur.
Maybe we should try it just for the fun of seeing people argue about being there first, “so please QSY.”
Perhaps ARRL had something like this in mind when the mentioned working on a re-write of on section 95, rather than just address a no-code issue.
73
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I figure, anyone who had a WN call, followed by a few more calls, has a pretty good idea of what they are talking about. Admittedly, there are some who have old calls, but weren’t active for many years, that seem to be way out in “left field”.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t make much sense any more to have the Novice sub band, if no one is going to use it.
Since the DX window is ridiculously small on 75, opening it by expanding the phone portion makes sense to me.
I doubt if expanding the phone portion will reduce the congestion on 75 though. It would however, allow a few more Qs to occur.
Maybe we should try it just for the fun of seeing people argue about being there first, “so please QSY.”
Perhaps ARRL had something like this in mind when the mentioned working on a re-write of on section 95, rather than just address a no-code issue.
73
Bob
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by AL7GA on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Perhaps Mr Clarke missed the whole point of the "open conditions" on the CW subbands. My Elmer told me one time that merely listening across the band was no indication of it's open condition, you must TRANSMIT. So, rather that complain about it's availability,sir, why not use it? Perhaps the reason he and others are not using it is the hatred they have developed for the mode of operation that built the Amateur Radio Service. We are all aware that "they" have succeeded in removing CW from the entry bar of our hobby, not because of any legitimate reason (we agreed to medical waivers many years ago), but simply because "they" don't like it!
To ask that the "crowded" voice subbands be pushed into the "uncrowded" CW subbands will have only one affect. More "crowded" voice subbands and less usable alternatives. While I have never been a sailor, nor had need of the assistance of my fellow Amateurs (though I have used CW to assist such ones), it would be reassuring to know that there WAS an uncrowded portion of the bands where a weaker yet more dependable CW signal sending SOS might be heard! Otherwise, those signals will be ignored and trounced upon by the new Codless H.A.M.s (Hate Amateur Modes) who think ... _ _ _ ... is just an annoying sound coming from their receivers.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KA5ROW on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I also think the cw portion of the band should be reduced by about 50% and expand the phone. No the cw portion is not wasted space it's not used to it's full potential. But with the code requirements of today and with more country's droping the code it will be more eveident in time that somthing needs to be done.
|
| |
|
Hmm, A Question????
|
|
|
by AL7GA on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I notice my reply was pasted in much earlier than posts I had already reviewed. Does this board use my computer clock (Alaska Time) to insert the comment? So that my post at 10:30 local, 19:30 UTC is recorded before a user at 11:00 Eastern, 16:00 UTC?
|
| |
|
CW section, a wasteland of virtually unused radio
|
|
|
by EI5FK on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bill im not sure if I understand you, u do not appear to be very active yourself.
I did a check on the cluster for W2BLC results as follows under all categories
1999 - NIL
2000 - NIL
2001 - NIL
2002 - NIL
2003 - NIL
Come on Bill, I think you are trying to take the rest of us for a "capital RIDE"
So before you make comments like this in the future "be a little bit more active" unless you are on that other mode "echolink"
Charles
http://www.qsl.net/ei5fk
|
| |
|
CW section, a wasteland of virtually unused radio
|
|
|
by EI5FK on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bill im not sure if I understand you, u do not appear to be very active yourself.
I did a check on the cluster for W2BLC results as follows under all categories
1999 - NIL
2000 - NIL
2001 - NIL
2002 - NIL
2003 - NIL
Come on Bill, I think you are trying to take the rest of us for a "capital RIDE"
So before you make comments like this in the future "be a little bit more active" unless you are on that other mode "echolink"
Charles
http://www.qsl.net/ei5fk
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am waiting for the FCC to drop the code requirement for testing. That being said, I strongly object to any farming out of the current CW bands.
Dennis - KG4RUL
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by NI0C on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD5QEF:
I was wondering how to respond in a calm fashion to this article, then came across your post. You said it very well-- thank you!
A few years ago, I was in a local ham friend's shack, well equipped with Collins gear. This fellow was licensed in the late 1940's and looked right at me and said that 40 meters was not a DX band, that he had never heard any DX to speak of on the band. I smiled, sat down in his operating chair, and proceeded to find some DX for him! (It took only about a minute). So, I don't take too much stock in what other people say they can't hear on the bands.
73 & have fun with the K-2 rig!
Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W4EWJ on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W2BLC
Lets see now...how can I say this in polite
company....
Go perform an unatural act on yourself.
I'm not polite, understanding, sensitive, caring,
or politically correct. Have paid my dues many times
over and will always call a spade a spade...and dont
give a flying copulation if you like it or not.
Earle Johnson
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>by KC2JBB on November 9, 2003
I never write in to these boards but for this I must. I worked hard to learn CW (I'm still pretty slow but I try hard to be a 'good operator'). I like CW. I am licensed to operate in the CW mode. Take this away from me or hinder me in any way and I will be madder than hell.<<<<
Spoken like a true ham. I wish we had more hams like you on the bands. Good job.
|
| |
|
RE: Hmm, A Question????
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Selective hearing. Like a little kid, who only hears what he wants to hear.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I was tuning around 10 meters last night and I didn't hear anything. We need to eliminate 10 meters.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The 75 meter ops are the worst in the world. They send splatter and spurious signals throughout the band. They obviously have no technical competence or they would clean up their over modulated signal that they overdrive their amps with. Their conversations are void of any intelligent information. They sit around with their tinfoil hats on and discuss how aliens are taking over the country and that we never landed on the moon."
Isn't it something how quickly some guy inadvertently sending continuous dits on 20m was found and stopped? Yet, the crap that you accurately describe on 75m has been going on for decades and goes unabated with no consequences. It is all clearly illegal -- the excessive power, the splatter, overmodulation, the spurious signals -- all clearly violations of Part 97. By the way, what did they get the ditter on? Failure to ID?
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The 75 meter ops are the worst in the world. They send splatter and spurious signals throughout the band. They obviously have no technical competence or they would clean up their over modulated signal that they overdrive their amps with. Their conversations are void of any intelligent information. They sit around with their tinfoil hats on and discuss how aliens are taking over the country and that we never landed on the moon."
Isn't it something how quickly some guy inadvertently sending continuous dits on 20m was found and stopped? Yet, the crap that you accurately describe on 75m has been going on for decades and goes unabated with no consequences. It is all clearly illegal -- the excessive power, the splatter, overmodulation, the spurious signals -- all clearly violations of Part 97. By the way, what did they get the ditter on? Failure to ID?
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W0UCE on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well "Mr. Bill:"
Thus far a number of us disagree with an assessment of a short monitoring session on 80 meter CW proves no activity. I notice however there are comments being made by those who do not include callsigns are supporting theory of giving CW segment to SSB. Why does this not surprise me? It is unlikely the ARRL, FCC or ITU would give even slight, if any consideration to a letter, e-mail or phone call saying "I listened on my eight party telephone line for an hour last night and no one was talking. "Please Ma Bell, take those other people off the twisted pair so I can have a private line."
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by K6BBC on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Until the ARRL becomes realistic about the state of the hobby, and stops catering to their aging membership, they will continue to be irrelevant. Should the CW portion of the band be reduced? Have a listen down there for your answer.
K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
There is NO activity on 222-225Mhz. We should get rid of that band too. I guess that's your logic.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by WA2DTW on November 9, 2003
"A slippery slope. First having a no-code license to begin with, then allowing no-coders access to HF, then reducing the CW subbands, then eliminating them.
The prospect of curtailing CW subbands is probably the primary reason for opposition to no-coders on HF. Imagine when the phone bands get super-saturated, there will be even more pressure on CW subbands.
CW is the heart and soul of ham radio. Let's leave it alone."
This is a very good point and one we all need to keep an eye on. Fred Mia, W5YI of the W5YI group, NCVEC member and NCI board member has already brought this issue up at a recent NCVEC meeting. He made a proposition to petition for elimination of the CW subbands. There were no objections only a comment that this is not the time to bring it up. Once we have all the lazy no-code generals then they will petition for more phone space. The ground work is already being laid.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by N1ZHE on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's not get rid of it too quick! My paddles are on order, and I hope to get my two grandsons interested someday.
David
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Another point is that CW ops often work QRP or at very low power levels. Most CW ops don't use an amp. Some don't even own an amp. But check out the 75 meter band and you got all the full power stations; 1.5Kw and up. One listen on 75meters and you will hear half the ops tuning up their amps and the rest are either checking into a net or talking about the latest conspiracy. Phone ops can’t hear properly unless the signal is over modulated, overdriven, spurious, and splattering. CW is a skill that requires work. Phone is like talking on…well a phone.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W3DCG on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Don't want to start another endless unwinnable Yea/Nay debate here so I will not go there.
I wonder how many more stations will occupy SSB General sub-bands if remedial 5 wpm is droppseydaisied.
Looking for more space, because evidently, it is not croweded enough already, where will the cross-hairs land? Current Novice/Tech plus CW sub-bands + the adjoining 25 Kc down from that?
In the same spirit of those who rather wait for the remedial 5 to be dropped completely- instead of lobbying for more SSB space, why not just wait for technology to bridge the gap and create more space via something like PSK digital phone, etc etc.
You know, wait until technology arrives that drastically reduces the required bandwidth of a voice transmission.
That means, in keeping with advancing the state of the art, keep the band allowcations as they are, as an incentive, for creating great phone in a 1.5 Khz space (Max).
Well, there's my two cents, for what it is worth.
I don't mean to give the impression that voice modes can stop existing- I like phone. I'd do it more if I could, and the more I do it, the more I like it. 73.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W0OOW on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Perhaps if you would try a different antenna, or possibily tune slower. Remember, CW is a much narrower mode than CW. Here in Nebraska, I here many stations - yes, even out here. OR..... you could always switch to CW if you believe that it is a vast wasteland!! Just think of how much room you would have if what you say is true.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on November 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wrote an opinion about this topic and in return got to see some amazing (?)replies from the folks who are obviously dead against the "horrifying thought" of reducing band space for CW-only operation;
Just about every person who replied against reducing band space is worried about 80 meter CW and assumes that my receivers and antennas are ready for the scrap heap. (your ESP is a little off)
Hey, I've been at this for a long time; maybe I don't have a 1x2 or a 1x3 call sign, but I've put in my time building equipment and antennas (a time when that was a major part of what ham radio is all about) and have been in the thick of more CW pile-ups and trafic nets than I care to count.
....and my RX works just fine and I know what time of the year it is.......been there, done that.
Obviously, it sounds like many of you have top-notch state of the art receivers. If so, then you should be able to put some of those fancy DSP's to work and still work CW with some QRM in the mix - you know, just like old times? Gee, maybe that's why Kenwood and Icom are getting $1300-$2600 for a transceiver these days. Compared to 15 years ago, they still put out 100 watts and they still sound about the same......
So, when is someone going to cut through the bull and talk common sense? Hey, if we aren't using 220 which I know most of you don't (here's another can of worms)well then maybe we should give it up - and maybe get something better that everyone can take advantage of.
How about reviewing this band by band?? Maybe we should allow phone operation down to 3.600?
Instead of worrying about the CW bands, it might be advisable to spend more time writing about BPL concerns or what the WRC-2003 has in store for us.....like taking a chunk of 40 away. Hey, I like 40 but the band is poc-marked with SW broadcast and so this is probably inevitable. Did anyone think this was going to get better?
I got a real kick out of how the ARRL responded to the WRC. Write a paper quoting how we lost band space during the 1938 Cairo Conference and for good measure, throw in a spectrum analyzer shot showing all the 40m "amateur" operation in the early evening. Funny, I've never seen a spectrum analyzer equipped with a "ham signal bandpass/SW broadcast reject" filter option.
Helllllloooooooooo, is anybody really home - in Newington???
Oh and for those of you who think for a second that having "CW finess" is the mark of the superior amateur, please give us all a break from this crap. Just pure BS..................
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W3JJH on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If the 80 m band were apportioned for roughly equal use by CW and phone operators, the phone subband would be somewhat larger. Assuming 500 Hz spacing for CW signals and 3 kHz for SSB, a split of 80 kHz for CW and 420 kHz for phone would allow for 160 simultaneous CW QSOs and 140 on phone.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KZ9G on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W2BLC has it right.
The 80 M CW band is usually a wasteland, and could be right-sized. Even during contests, a 100 KHz CW band would serve quite nicely.
WA1RNE also has it right.
The lack of CW activity these last few years is quite alarming. I advocate the right sizing of the CW bands. They should give up some bandwidth to digital and voice interests.
It is time to move forward, and not continue to waste our precious bandwidth. Oh, the rude and boisterous comments from the OT's are funny!
73 de Steve, KZ9G/7
Bothell, WA
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by 4Z1JW on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was first licensed in 1950, and cut my teeth on 40CW with a single 6V6 and an end fed random wire antenna. I had three FT-243 crystals, 7006.667, 7025 and 7075 to go along with my 5 watts out. Common practice was to call CQ, listen around your frequency, and then up and down the band for a station calling you on his rockbound frequency. It worked. I would stay between 7 and 7.1, and always made contacts.
Now, times have changed in many ways, with the advent of the VFO becoming popular,but most significantly with the appearance of the modern transceiver. Presently, you have QSO's on your own frequency, the need to scout up to the band edge no longer has any value. When I operate CW today, from the home station or the mobile, I will operate up to about 30 or 35 Khz from the lower band edge, and not more. Only very rarely will I hear stations either calling CQ or chatting beyond there.
Therein is based my reaction to possibly reducing the CW portions and expanding the voice portions. As a matter of principle, part of me wants to see the bands untouched as they are today, but another more realistic part of me says, through experience, that there is a lot of virtually unused CW spectrum which might better serve the voice operators, while taking away from we CW guys, practically, nothing. It is like living on a very large piece of property, but using only a small portion of it, while the rest is wasted and lying fallow for the sake of ego alone. Ten meters is a whole 'nuther issue.
Lets' give the issue a fair looksee, and maybe we'll all come out unscathed and maybe even in better shape than the bands presently provide for.
And one last thought...Lets' speak like gentlemen in these forums, befitting who and what we are, whether or not we agree with the topic at issue.
73,
Joe Weisberger
4Z1JW / W2FJF
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just a little reality check, except for 50.000MHZ to 50.100MHz and 144.000MHz to 144.100MHz there are no EXCLUSIVE CW segments. All of the HF "CW" segments are shared with RTTY and digital modes. By gentleman's agreement, CW generally occupies the lower 50-60 KHz while RTTY and digital take up the upper portions, the exceptions being the Novice/Tech+ segments on 80, 40 & 15 meters. On these three bands I can easily see expanding the phone portions to include the Novice bands and granting Novice/Tech+ operators CW only privleges in the General Class CW segments. Move the Extra and Advanced phone segments down to the new subband edge and expand the General sections. This will become very important on 40M when the WRC-2003 removal of SW broadcasters from 7.1-7.2 MHz goes into effect.
If the phone bands are still too crowded then upgrade to Extra, I find the Extra/Advanced phone segments to be less populated than the CW segments on any given day or night regardless of the band. Case in point, I was on 80 & 40 CW last night working DX, tuned up to the Extra phone segements and only heard static.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just a little reality check, except for 50.000MHZ to 50.100MHz and 144.000MHz to 144.100MHz there are no EXCLUSIVE CW segments. All of the HF "CW" segments are shared with RTTY and digital modes. By gentleman's agreement, CW generally occupies the lower 50-60 KHz while RTTY and digital take up the upper portions, the exceptions being the Novice/Tech+ segments on 80, 40 & 15 meters. On these three bands I can easily see expanding the phone portions to include the Novice bands and granting Novice/Tech+ operators CW only privleges in the General Class CW segments. Move the Extra and Advanced phone segments down to the new subband edge and expand the General sections. This will become very important on 40M when the WRC-2003 removal of SW broadcasters from 7.1-7.2 MHz goes into effect.
If the phone bands are still too crowded then upgrade to Extra, I find the Extra/Advanced phone segments to be less populated than the CW segments on any given day or night regardless of the band. Case in point, I was on 80 & 40 CW last night working DX, tuned up to the Extra phone segements and only heard static.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Another reality check. Regions 1 & 3 only have 7.00-7.10 MHz. The RTTY and digital segments are around 7.035 MHz in those regions. During contests they expand as activity increases just like CW activity creeps into the digital segments during contests. Many times I have had CW nets cancelled during digital/RTTY contests and vice versa. It's just a fact of hamming life.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sure...why not?
Just don't complain when your ragchew about your latest ailments gets QRMed by CW during contest weekends or band openings.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W8MW on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W2BLC stirred up a lot of emotion from all these 80 meter devotees. No, wait, not that many actual 80 meter ops. Just spokesmen for what's right. And of course, no change is what's right. Right?
I appreciate Bill's comments because they expose a problem (and opportunity) that should have been addressed long ago. There was a time when an equal split of CW/Voice was good band management in the 3.5 to 4.0 MHz region. I've been operating both ends of this spectrum since 1962 and am particularly fond of 80 CW where I got my start in amateur radio.
80 meters was in trouble long before the code debates. By the end of the 70's and going into the 80's there was a major decline in regular daily activity. Those who choose not to believe me, okay. Those with a history of operating 80 know it's true. Today's activity even with CW contests can be accommodated in less than 100 kHz.
The opportunity would be to dedicate appropriate chunks of this real estate to mode specific operations. I'd like to see segments for CW Preservation, Data, SSTV, AM, and some expansion of SSB bandspace. 80 could become a lively HF band with ample room for all flavors of HF modes. Or it can set there mostly vacant displaying our inability as a group to achieve consensus on anything.
73, Mike W8MW
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by N2MG on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Listen to the CW bands during a contest - you will hear lots of activity. Try Thanksgiving (USA) w/e for CQWW CW.
OH...MY...GOD... He said, "contest".
Yep - lots of activity then. So much so that all you complainers out there will bitch about it.
Mike N2MG
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by WILLY on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
" by WA2DTW on November 9, 2003
A slippery slope. First having a no-code license to begin with, then allowing no-coders access to HF, then reducing the CW subbands, then eliminating them. "
Agreed
"The prospect of curtailing CW subbands is probably the primary reason for opposition to no-coders on HF. Imagine when the phone bands get super-saturated, there will be even more pressure on CW subbands. "
True
"
CW is the heart and soul of ham radio. Let's leave it alone. "
Very true. Well said.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by WILLY on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
" Bill Clarke (W2BLC) on November 9, 2003
---
I then tuned from 3800 to 4000 and there were so many QSOs and nets that I could not count them accurately. Many are so crowded together frequency wise, that they interfere with one another. "
It seems that your goal, and the others here that agree with you, to get more phone bandwidth.
Why is everyone so closed minded when searching for bandwidth? Why do you immediately attack the CW portion of the band?
If you feel we need more bandwidth for phone, haven't you thought of asking for 4.0Mhz to 4.500Mhz, for example?
Why not?
Why is the CW portion of what exists now a target, when the 500kc above the present band is not?
EVERYBODY would probably agree that getting more phone space would be nice, if we could do it without giving up any of what we already have.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by N2MG on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Guys, maybe you'll call this a semantic issue, but there really are NO CW subbands.
CW has ENTIRE bands.
Phone has subbands.
Mike N2MG
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W4VR on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Even though most data mode operators won't admit it, the writing is on the wall with regard to CW and its future. All CW bands should be limited to 50 kHz or less, and reserve what's left over for voice operations. The way the CW bands are set up right now, it's a vast wasteland except during a contest. With the narrow filters available today, even on the cheapest radios you can buy, 50 kHz on each band is more than ample to satisfy the interests of a dying breed, and wide enough to accomodate our data mode enthusiasts of the present and future.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by N8MMZ on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I too had similar problems as Bill. I would have been in total agreement with him, except I took another look at my radio arrangement.
I soon discovered that the powerline had been unplugged from the wall.
Honestly, maybe Bill is having receiver problems - maybe he has water in the foam dielectric of his coax? Maybe he has some relay problems in his receiver?? Maybe he has a lousy antenna??? I would be concerned with my station setup if I wasn't hearing activity on the cw bands.
73's de N8MMZ
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, Bill, I've sometimes noticed the same thing. However, then I remember that...
-A great many active CW ops run very low power, and just because they're using the band doesn't mean I can hear them!
-80m is noise-limited about 100% of the time, so weak signals are difficult to pull out without specialized receiving antennas -- which pretty much adds definition to the statement above.
-When I go operate at an "80 meter big gun's" station, I hear one hell of a lot more activity than I do from my home, where all I have is an 80m inverted vee at fifty feet (pretty marginal antenna for DX or weak signal work).
And an opinion: If 75m is so darned crowded, why not move to another band like 40m or 160m? Not everyone has to be on 75m. Half of what I hear on 75m is exactly what keeps me from putting a signal on the band there, or from listening for very long.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
CW RULES!
|
|
|
by W8KQE on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I say leave a good thing alone. There are still plenty of CW operators out there, myself included, who enjoy the mode immensely, and utilize these CW frequencies whenever we get the chance. Quite frankly, band overcrowding on voice modes is a whole other issue, and my solution to this growing problem would be to allow 'Generals' and up access to ALL voice bands on HF, or at least the former 'Advanced' slivers. My 2 cents.
|
| |
|
CW RULES!
|
|
|
by W8KQE on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I say leave a good thing alone. There are still plenty of CW operators out there, myself included, who enjoy the mode immensely, and utilize these CW frequencies whenever we get the chance. Quite frankly, band overcrowding on voice modes is a whole other issue, and my solution to this growing problem would be to allow 'Generals' and up access to ALL voice bands on HF, or at least the former 'Advanced' slivers. My 2 cents.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by NS5U on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Okay, I got to get in here. I love CW. I almost never use SSB or anything else. I also follow the old practice of listening more than I speak. Oh and I don't spend my radio time emptying brown bottles.
75 meters is and has been a wasteland. It can also be the friendliest most active and inviting band.....it is wide open and active on SSB. I have gotten more people into the hobby from listening to the real people on 75 phone than anywhere else. The lack of CW activity on all our bands begs the question "Why all the reserved space? What goes for activity across 80 meter CW allocation could happen in less than 100kc. 40 meters could use more CW space. 20 meter CW gets crowded but 80meters is a disappointment. The SSB activity warrants a larger allocation.
We are going to see a no code requirement for full privileges soon.
For that matter if we don't find some manner of becoming relevant to the rest of the world the pressure of commercial and government needs will result in the destruction of this pastime. As it is the public doesn't know us from CBer's and the youth is far more interested in cell phones and internet.
We don't need to disintergrate into unshaven,inebriated,codgers so self absorbed the world passes by happy to see us leave.
Sometimes you wonder whatever happened to Wayne Greene?
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by VE2DC on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bill has a point... rebalancing the bands to reflect usage is not a bad idea on 80. The lower end of the band is relatively sparce most evenings. This is not really the case on other bands though...
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KX2S on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W2BLC - GET A LIFE
Another one who not only wants to eliminate CW testing
but wants to eliminate CW. I see you stated in your bio that you spent most of your life rag chewing on 75 and 40m. Well stay there
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KT8K on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In my perception, and I do listen there once in a while, 75M sounds like CB, especially with all the AM mixed in. Why would we want to expand that??
I am a QRP operator, 5 watts max, and make lots of contacts, though mostly using CW. I figure that's for two reasons. One is the signal-to-noise ratio advantage I get using CW, but the other is that most phone stations use 100w or perhaps a lot more, so that they don't have to have very good antennas or listen very well. In fact, on 40 and 75 they probably have their RF gain controls cut back to try to avoid the splatter from other overpowered phone ops. As a result, they don't hear me call them. So I end up mostly on CW, where people are used to listening AND can hear me. It helps that CW ops are FAR more polite, too, and conversations tend to be a lot more tasteful and less long winded.
I don't agree with expanding 75M phone - it's bad enough over a large enough piece of spectrum now.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KX2S on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W2BLC I see you upgraded to LITE EXTRA.
CODE to much for you?
As stated above CW has the whole band. Phone is in the subband
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by K5UJ on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<<The 75 meter ops are the worst in the world. They send splatter and spurious signals throughout the band. They obviously have no technical competence or they would clean up their over modulated signal that they overdrive their amps with. Their conversations are void of any intelligent information. They sit around with their tinfoil hats on and discuss how aliens are taking over the country and that we never landed on the moon. >>>
As a 75 meter op let me say THANK YOU FOR THE FAN MAIL!!! Now, a Technical Question: Do I drive the 3cx800 with the 3cx6000 or is it the other way around? Because, I been driving the 800 with the 6000 & getting great audio reports but lotsa meltdowns. Just a second; the nurse is here with my Seconal.
Uh, where was I--oh yeah, gotta fire up the rig and talk about The Black Helicopter Menace. (thump thump thump) They're coming in the dead of night ya know. (thump) One world order (thump) Folks, keep those cards and letters coming! : )
Rob/K5UJ
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by K5UJ on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<<The 75 meter ops are the worst in the world. They send splatter and spurious signals throughout the band. They obviously have no technical competence or they would clean up their over modulated signal that they overdrive their amps with. Their conversations are void of any intelligent information. They sit around with their tinfoil hats on and discuss how aliens are taking over the country and that we never landed on the moon. >>>
As a 75 meter op let me say THANK YOU FOR THE FAN MAIL!!! Now, a Technical Question: Do I drive the 3cx800 with the 3cx6000 or is it the other way around? Because, I been driving the 800 with the 6000 & getting great audio reports but lotsa meltdowns. Just a second; the nurse is here with my Seconal.
Uh, where was I--oh yeah, gotta fire up the rig and talk about The Black Helicopter Menace. (thump thump thump) They're coming in the dead of night ya know. (thump) One world order (thump) Folks, keep those cards and letters coming! : )
Rob/K5UJ
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by VE2DC on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In a way, Clinton has a point... Narrow band modes do take up a lot less room... under the present 50/50 split there is room for about 10 times as many CW QSOs as Phone... and if you factor in the fact that there is more casual phone than CW operating it pretty much explains why the CW band seems pretty quiet by comparison most evenings.
BTW, the quality of SSB signals isn't really the issue in this thread.
>Perhaps the lack of dirty splattering signals (such as many found in the phone portions of the band) just make the CW segment sound quieter...
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Bill, perhaps if you plugged in your coax, you would have heard more? Just a thought.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Bill, perhaps if you plugged in your coax you would have heard a few more? Just a thought.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by K2IY on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The CW subbands should be kept open just in case an alien civilization is trying to contact us.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>All CW bands should be limited to 50 kHz or less, and reserve what's left over for voice operations. <<<<
Hey, what about my 1930's spark gap transmitter? It still works good, but I need at least 3 Mhz elbow room to operate, So I say we increase CW space on the bands.
While we are at it, let's take back some of the bands we lost in the past and designate 27.185 as the official CW calling frequency!
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was listening to CW last night on 20 and 40 meters and many people are just using CW as a "mode" of communication just like "FSK" with a computer interface.
I was listening to CW transmissions that was being converted from a keyboard and then generated over the air as CW signals.
CW was also being recieved and deciphered by a computer at the recieving end. This is apparently nothing new.
The point being is you don't need to know anything about CW at all to send and recieve CW if you are using a computer and soundcard interface.
My question is, Isn't this just another form of digital communications just like FSK?
It just isn't CW without the brass.
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was listening to CW last night on 20 and 40 meters and many people are just using CW as a "mode" of communication just like "FSK" with a computer interface.
I was listening to CW transmissions that was being converted from a keyboard and then generated over the air as CW signals.
CW was also being recieved and deciphered by a computer at the recieving end. This is apparently nothing new.
The point being is you don't need to know anything about CW at all to send and recieve CW if you are using a computer and soundcard interface.
My question is, Isn't this just another form of digital communications just like FSK?
It just isn't CW without the brass.
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by N7SOC on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
OH, I just have to get in on this.....Bill, I don't hear you on the air...does that mean you should turn in your license?? i just happen to like cw..it is all i do..thanks all, ski
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W1GYF on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This guy's got a lousy rcvr and/or doesn't know how to use whatever rcvr he's got. If ur expecting Radio Moskow, u aint gonna hear S-one CW signals, which are often perfectly readable. S-one SSB signals, on the other hand, are virtually non-existent. Ya hear whatcha wanna hear and ya see whatcha wanna see.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Move the 75 meter phone ops to the so-called "freeband" or "bootleggers" haven, and split-up the free space between Morse (CW), and ALL the digital modes, present and future! ;-}
This is tongue-in-cheek...
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Move the 75 meter phone ops to the so-called "freeband" or "bootleggers" haven, and split-up the free space between Morse (CW), and ALL the digital modes, present and future! ;-}
This is tongue-in-cheek...
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by K0RGR on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, it's difficult for anyone to appreciate the level of activity on a band based on casual observations from a single location. Listening from the East Coast you hear more activity than I do here in the Upper Midwest.
On most nights, I can hear 100 W stations from nearly all of the country on 80 with very little trouble. But I don't hear nearly as many as I used to. I do hear QRPers, but a lot of them must be using their bed springs as antennas, because they must be at least 60 dB down from a 100 watter with a dipole, or I'd hear more of them. True, my station is built for domestic QSO's only, not DX, so I don't hear that activity at all.
Having said that, I don't see much opportunity for phone band expansion any time soon.
If the SSB segment on 80 is moved down to 3600, the VE and other non-U.S. phone stations will just move down into the bottom 100 Khz., just like 40 meters, in order to get away from us. We have always granted the Canadians a 'buffer' where they could operate 75 meter phone without U.S. interference. We must keep this buffer, or CW operation on 80 will be impacted a great deal.
I do think that some adjustment is possible here, but I agree with those who suggest 160 meters and 60 meters as alternatives to more 75 meter phone band.
If the Novice band is redeployed, I think the phone band could be expanded down to 3675, at least, with little impact on current CW and digital activity.
Otherwise, it should be left "as-is".
Until the 7.1 to 7.2 segment of 40 becomes world-wide exclusive, I can't see much opportunity for improvement in this band. Eventually, it would be nice to see the Novice band go away, with digital modes from 7100 to 7125, and voice above 7125, but only if the foreign SSB stations move out of the segment below 7100. Please note that I am proposing an increase in bandwidth for General CW and digital here, not a decrease. There is plenty of activity on 40 CW. We need to increase use of 30 meters as an alternative to this band (but lots of people claim that band is packed, too - the hill I live on must be made of Type 43 ferrite material and absorbs HF RF).
If anything, the CW/digital band should be expanded on 20.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by K6BBC on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K0RGR - what have you been smoking? Expand CW on 20 meters? There is nobody between 14.100 and 14.150 now. You just have an agenda here. CW is dying. In 25 years it will be gone.
K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by AK2A on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Instead of taking away band space from cw ops, why dont you re-learn the code. CW is MUCH more efficient for communications. I have worked VK long path with 5 watts to a dipole. Try that on SSB.
Join us!
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W6EZ on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was waiting for this one.
I just knew that someone somewhere would try to get the CW portions of the bands for themselves.
It just had to happen.
Kind of like the folks who build houses next to air ports or race tracks and then try to get the race track or air port shut down.
Or the guys who joins a Harley club and then whine when the club won't let them ride a ricer in the Harley parade.
( personaly I like ricer rockets, but then I'm not a member or a Harley club either.)
Maybe this topic was just "bait." I hope so.
|
| |
|
DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!
|
|
|
by KC7BDP on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If the general disposition of the thread isn't any clue; I'll say you've got to be joking!
First off, I'm a Tech. A NO CODE Tech. I'm studying CW; planning to get past the 5WPM before that test goes away. Once I pass the test, I'll probably never use the mode. But please let's keep the CW subbands.
It's bad enough that I'm a lazy nincompoop for not having taken the General test when the CW requirement was 13WPM; if I don't take and pass the CW exam at 5WPM, I'll become a mental reprobate of illegitimate heritage. And, if the CW subbands go away; I'll be forever hopelessly lost with a net worth far below that of canine excrement! Please, don't do that to myself and thousands of other unworthy Hams.
Sheese!
Jimmy
KC7BDP
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by WB2AMU on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
There is no hope for you with that kind of logic. I could reverse it and say that I did not hear any SSB activity today on the 12 Meter band....maybe we should get rid of the SSB portion on 12 Meters. I remember reading a stupid article that tried to use mathematical analysis to prove a point about Sporadic-E propagation using just three different days. You are trying to infer the same thing based on one quick listening.....try taking an average over 30 consecutive days on one of the CW and report back with your findings! There is no room for a psuedo-study like yours!!!!
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by N6AJR on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
this last week end was the work all europe RTTY contest or something, and the "cw" end of the bands were in heavy use.. maybe you need to put up an antenna that works, could I reccommend a fan dipole??
73 tom N6AJR
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by N6AJR on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Also, Rmemeber, CW can operate ANY WHERE on any band, its those of us who prefer Phone that are restricted as to where we can operate. IT IS NOT CW SUB BAND, IT IS RESTRICTED PHONE.. know what I mean Vern??
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KG4WBH on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi there,
I don't normally read the replies to an article any more due to the rants of the two sides of the CW fence. I just like to see a good article every now and then. You know there isn't any reason we couldn't rearrange the bandplan- times are changing- I am a BIG CW buff and use it almost exclusively, but I have to agree with you on this one. There is alot of unused spectrum there that could be better allocated. If the guys in the 75 meter area like KW rigs and wide band SSB signals, hey that is the part of ham radio that they like. I don't agree with the profanity or the lack of IDing, but like I said, if that is what they want to do, let them. They are the ones that are taking their chances with Riley, not me. They seem to stay in the band allocation pretty good so they can't be all bad. I do like the fact that we have gentlemans agreements thought because it makes finding a qso a lot easier so lets at lest keep that part of the "bandplan".
All I can say in summary is that you need to submit a petition for rulemaking with the FCC and see if they are willing to work with you on it.
73
David Saylors
KG4WBH
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W6JE on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Ham radio has become a technology museum: CW, SSB, RTTY. I'm nearly 50, and the hobby's become too old for me.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W6JE on November 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Ham radio has become a technology museum: CW, SSB, RTTY. I'm nearly 50, and the hobby's become too old for me.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W9SN on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am shocked that someone would take such an unscientific approach to such a technical subject.
Just tuning around on a band and given point in time does not justify an opinion to turn the bands upside-down. First of all, most cw operators don't start getting on 80 cw till the winter time sets in (I am one of them). Second, there are several nights that the noise level is so high that I switch to another band like 40 cw that is really crowded (just listen to it). Third, just wait till a cw contest on 80....that will tell all!! Fourth, most stations put up low dipole antennas on 80 and just becuase you can't hear them, don't mean they are not there.
Bill, get a grip, come and ask someone before you do something so stupid like ask the ARRL to turn our bands upside down from your split-second observation.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>I also think the cw portion of the band should be reduced by about 50% and expand the phone.<<<<
How would I be able to use my Spark Gap transmitter? I need at least 3Mhz. bandwidth?!
I thinks it's kinda funny to listen in on CW as I am right now just to find out that everyone is using a computer and a sound card to send CW as well as decode the signals.
Is this just another "digital" mode like PSK?
73
KC8VWM
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by N3TTN on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OLDFART13 Wrote: " There is NO activity on 222-225Mhz. We should get rid of that band too. I guess that's your
logic."
You have already admitted that you are not a licensed amateur, so there is no "we", understand?? If you don't have a ticket, you are NOT a ham, period...I don't how to make that any clearer to you. Until you stop running around this board saying "we hams" and "us hams", and otherwise representing yourself as a bonafide amateur, I am going to follow you everwhere you go and expose you for what you are...a non-ham, Until such time as you show up here with a valid call sign, you have ZERO credibility when it comes to amateur related issues as far as I am concerned, and I think most "real" hams would concur.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by N3TTN on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OLDFART13 Wrote: "Spoken like a true ham. I wish we had more hams like you on the bands. Good job."
You have already admitted that you are not a licensed amateur, so there is no "we", understand?? If you don't have a ticket, you are NOT a ham, period...I don't how to make that any clearer to you. Until you stop running around this board saying "we hams" and "us hams", and otherwise representing yourself as a bonafide amateur, I am going to follow you everwhere you go and expose you for what you are...a non-ham, Until such time as you show up here with a valid call sign, you have ZERO credibility when it comes to amateur related issues as far as I am concerned, and I think most "real" hams would concur.
N3TTN
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by K2ACX on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K0RGR:
<<If the SSB segment on 80 is moved down to 3600, the VE and other non-U.S. phone stations will just move down into the bottom 100 Khz., just like 40 meters, in order to get away from us. We have always granted the Canadians a 'buffer' where they could operate 75 meter phone without U.S. interference.>>
How come the Canadians need to get away from us?
K2ACX
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W4VR
I don't think 50KHz is sufficient to accomodate both CW and digital modes on any band. Except for PSK31, all other "narrow" digital modes take up between 100 and 500 Hz. Ever notice how wide PACTOR and RTTY signals are? You won't fit very many of those signals in a 50KHz segment. On most bands about 100 KHz is the minimum I would suggest for narrow modes. On 80M perhaps 150 KHz should be reserved for narrow modes.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The FCC needs solutions not more debates.
Expand the current CW segments and change the name of the allocation to (drum roll please:)
"Digital HF"
Include CW as an operational mode in ALL "Digital HF" allocations.
See how easy that was?
73
Charles -KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>RE: CW Band Usage Reply
by K6BBC on November 11, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Is it just me or is this board acting strange? <<<<
Uh, no my posts are going up to the top of the treads too.?!
??
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W3CDE on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, it is apparent that some folks do not like CW. The neat part is IF they would eliminae the CW subband, we would still be able to operate with out any problem. Narrow Bandwidth you know!! But "them there SSB types" will be having a nasty time! 8-).. CW will eat their lunch in real time. Or even put a good RTTY signal on or near a SSB conversation and they are dead meat!! 8-)... As Homer Simpson would say.
I will continue to operate QRP CW and if that will not work, the SB220 will come on line, just like the big boys! But at legal power. I love CW and QRP CW.
did dit dit
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by K0RGR on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K6BBC says I must have an agenda here because I suggest that the 20 meter CW/Digital segment should be, if anything, increased.
Actually, I don't favor any changes in the current regulations on this band. But, I'd like to see the digital users (I'm a fairly active one)make better use of 14.1 to 14.125 or 14.150. Also, 30 meters should be considered as an alternative - it is truly an ideal place for weak signal PSK31 and similar modes.
Even here in "NO-RF County", I can hear that both 20 and 40 are very busy. Unless you're an Extra like me, your nightime CW on 40 is often limited to 7025-7040, due to foreign SSB and digital activity. This band is very busy. 20 CW for most is 14.025- 14.060. Again, lots of traffic there. There is not much opportunity for change on these bands, and there is no need for any on the higher bands (unless they grant my wish someday and allow wider FM below 29 Mhz.).
This whole argument is probably moot, because there is a proposal on its way to change the way we manage our 'sub-bands' based on bandwidth. This is to eliminate some serious conflicts between the rules and new technologies. MFSK allows you to send data AND pictures, like SSTV, all within a very narrow bandwidth. Our current regulations don't allow the pictures to be sent in either the current digital or SSB segments! The answer is to divide the subbands based on bandwidth, not on mode.
Somebody else took me to task for my statement that the Canadians will expand into the CW band if we move SSB down to 3.600. Please don't shoot the messenger. This is why the 75 meter band is where it is today, and it is a real consideration. We could, of course, be ugly Americans and just change the band with no concern for non-U.S. hams. Now that Canada is deleting their Morse requirements, I expect to hear more 'Trapper's Nets' operating below the U.S. ham band.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KZ9G on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4RQ and others:
Bill's sample only mentioned monitoring the CW portion of the band during a short period of time. However, he and many others have monitored and occasionally used this portion of 80 meters over a period of MANY years. His findings, of which I concur, represent a typical night in his area of the country, and are most probably right on the mark. With the exception of contests and the deep lulls of the solar cycle, 80 M CW is wasteland. This bandwidth could be reduced by 50% and still easily and adequately serve the interests of CW and digital operators in our hemisphere, as well as the INCREASED need for additional phone bandwidth. It's time to right size this band and let the wider, less efficient modes operate over most of this band.
FACE REALITY:
- 80M CW doesn't offer worldwide operation throughout a solar cycle like 20 meters. Why is so much more bandwidth allocated to a far less utilized CW band?
- Moreover, 80M CW doesn't offer the same propagation capabilities to the average operator as 40 or 30 meters either. Again, why is so much bandwidth allocated to a far less utilized CW band? 95 to 99% of the time, I find far more CW operating taking place on these two bands than on 80 meter CW portion.
- Despite today's antenna restricted environment, the average operator cannot erect an efficient 80 M DX antenna. This lessens his capability to work DX stations on 80 M CW. It has effectively reduced the number of operators who would choose to spend their time and money to operate this band.
- 80 / 75 meters is great regional communications band. This band has been chosen by hams nationwide to be a "watering hole" for evening voice operations, and it serves this purpose very well. Overcrowding has been the norm for YEARS, while the CW portion of the band remains relatively empty.
If any HF band requires right sizing, it's the 80 meter band. Clearly, the disparity of bandwidth utilization between the Phone and CW segments is most vivid on this band. Can anyone honestly say that their is a somewhat equal number of QSO's taking place between the CW and Phone segments over any 30 or 60 day timeframe? I challenge anyone to do this and report back here. W2BLC was just pointing out the obvious, and it seems as though this factual and blunt observation hit a nerve or two in those who are emotionally "attached" to morse code. You can easily see that in their emotionally charged posts and in their feelings towards W2BLC.
73.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by AH6GI on November 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've set up http:groups.yahoo.com/group/codenocode
as a no-holds barred area for flame wars on the code v. nocode.
subscribe and have at it.
de ah6gi/4
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by K7ZT on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Willy:
Ok, you want to be "open minded", as a manager, in business, before I can justify additional resources to accomplish a task, I must demonstrate that I am efficiently using the resources entrusted to me first. We cannot go to any governing organization and request additional spectrum, when we aren't appropriately utilizing our existing space. It just doesn’t make any since.
I haven't been around as long as some folks on this board, but I have been licensed for 37 years and operated CW on 80 Meters when I was 12 years old. I use voice, digital, and yes CW on all bands, I've operated overseas in two countries, where the CW/Voice allocations are simply gentlemen’s agreements, not regulation. What is it about US Hams that must be regulated where to operate certain modes? Why must we wait on the IRAU, ARRL or FCC to tell us how to behave on the bands that we should self regulate.
It's time to take an objective look at all modes of operation and make smart recommendations to our leadership, not based wholy on emotion.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The only reason you can categorize CW as a "digital" mode is because you have to use your fingers to send it. No way, no how is CW a digital mode, I don't care what the exams claim. CW is a simple code that requires human ear to decode instead of a binary code that can be deciphered by a digital computer, the true definition of "digital". I think 20% spectrum for CW, 20% for true digital, and 60% for phone. As digital mode usage grows and CW declines, gradually move spectrum from CW to Digital. In 10 years, we probably won't need any spectrum specifically allocated for CW.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KD5YDY on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The only reason you can categorize CW as a "digital" mode is because you have to use your fingers to send it. No way, no how is CW a digital mode, I don't care what the exams claim. CW is a simple code that requires human ear to decode instead of a binary code that can be deciphered by a digital computer, the true definition of "digital". I think 20% spectrum for CW, 20% for true digital, and 60% for phone. As digital mode usage grows and CW declines, gradually move spectrum from CW to Digital. In 10 years, we probably won't need any spectrum specifically allocated for CW.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by PA3BWK on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<quote>It appears to me that the so called CW band is a vast wasteland of virtually unused radio spectrum <unquote>
It appears to ME that you are a unexperienced operator, otherwise you would know that CW is alive and kicking.
How can you build your case on a one evening experience?
I would suggest that you go find yourself a nice quiet spot in the CB band, that's where a 'HAM' like you belong. Maybe you can impress them with your 'theories'
Best 73,
Wilko J. Hollemans PA3BWK
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by WT6G on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SSB is obsolete. To address the problem of overcrowding in the SSB segments (which I have never seen except during SSB Sweepstakes), we should disallow this mode in favor of a Digital Radio Subband. Then there will be plenty of room for the the mike grabbers and lots of "obsolete" radios for us CW adificanos!
Another solution would be type-accepted SSB radios and amplifiers that could not be modified to splatter accross the band, which accounts for most of the "crowding". Such a system would have digital controls that the rice box operator couldn't modify with a feedback system built on propriatary and dynamically encrypted data path between the exciter and amplifier. Very easy to do these days.
Perhaps what is really needed to prevent "overcrowding" is a power limit for SSB of about 50 watts. It's called QRP and we've been doing that in CW for years to help with the overcrowding in the CW Only Segments which have shrunk continuously to accomodate new digital modes and increased CW activity. Almost all CW only radios are QRP, and there is a big market. This is in compliance with the rules and good operating procedures.
Try running CW these days with an older boat anchor and you 'll see how crowded the bands actually are. The DSP's and 250 Hz filters work wonders!
Of course W2BLC could buy a better radio or learn to use his attenuator control on 75 meters.
/Len
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by N3TTN on November 11, 2003
"OLDFART13 Wrote: "Spoken like a true ham. I wish we had more hams like you on the bands. Good job."
"You have already admitted that you are not a licensed amateur, so there is no "we", understand?? If you don't have a ticket, you are NOT a ham, period...I don't how to make that any clearer to you. Until you stop running around this board saying "we hams" and "us hams", and otherwise representing yourself as a bonafide amateur, I am going to follow you everwhere you go and expose you for what you are...a non-ham, Until such time as you show up here with a valid call sign, you have ZERO credibility when it comes to amateur related issues as far as I am concerned, and I think most "real" hams would concur."
N3TTN<<<
Are you really that stupid? Ok, yeah, I’m the secret, freebander who doesn’t have a license but I want to retain morse code testing. You are truly a moron. I used to post with my call but got tired of morons like you emailing me at my arrl.net address. As Paul Harvey would say; “Now you know the rest of the story.”
Bob.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yes the CW band should be eliminated. Think about it CW is dying and will not be required anymore so what is the point of a CW suband? Perhaps to keep the old guys happy we can give them about 25K of spectrum on each band. That should be enough.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KB8ELK on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am against "Band Plans". I believe we should be allowed to transmit ANY FCC approved mode ANYWHERE in the HF bands. QRO ? yup. QRP ? yup. Digital/voice/cw one big free for all.
Stop whining and name calling. Change frequency if you cant stand the heat or topic.
Ron
KB8ELK
Devoted 80M QRO
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KB8ELK on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am against "Band Plans". I believe we should be allowed to transmit ANY FCC approved mode ANYWHERE in the HF bands. QRO ? yup. QRP ? yup. Digital/voice/cw one big free for all.
Stop whining and name calling. Change frequency if you cant stand the heat or topic.
Ron
KB8ELK
Devoted 80M QRO
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by NR1SS on November 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>There is just no way all this spectrum, from 3500 to >3700 can be justified under its current usage
Your opinion. No facts to back it up. Get a job and
"Expletive Deleted" forget about it.
EndOfList
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by K9MUG on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
90% of the phone qso's on the ham bands are of the mindless cb type particularly those on 75 meters. "Nets" are social gatherings, not really nets.
The dx window (3790-3800 khz) is regularly intruded by
uninformed hams who have found a "quiet" frequency.
You want to expand this kind of activity?????
Go to 11 meters good buddy.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>90% of the phone qso's on the ham bands are of the mindless cb type particularly those on 75 meters. "Nets" are social gatherings, not really nets.<<<
Geez, we are not running a military communications operation when we have nets... say this to yourself 3 times a day,"Amateur Radio is a hobby."
You should start feeling better and will be ejoying Amateur radio in a few days.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>Otherwise, those signals will be ignored and trounced upon by the new Codless H.A.M.s (Hate Amateur Modes) who think ... _ _ _ ... is just an annoying sound coming from their receivers. <<<<
.. / ... ..- .--. .--. --- ... . / - .... .- - / .--- ..- ... - / -... . -.-. .- ..- ... . / - .... . .-. . / .- .-. . / .... .- -- ... / - .... .- - / .--. .-. . ..-. . .-. / -. --- - / - --- / ..- ... . / -.-. --- -.. . / - .... .- - / .. - / .--. .- .. -. - ... / - .... . -- / .- .-.. .-.. / .- ... / -.-. --- -.. . .-.. . ... ... / .... .- -- ... / --... ...-- / -.. . / -.- -.-. ---.. ...- .-- -- / -.-. .... .- .-. .-.. . ...
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by N3TTN on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OLDFART13 Wrote: "Are you really that stupid? Ok, yeah, I’m the secret, freebander who doesn’t have a license but I want to retain morse code testing. You are truly a moron. I used to post with my call but got tired of morons like you emailing me at my arrl.net address. As Paul Harvey would say; “Now you know the rest of the story.”
Bob."
You used to post your call? Yeah right. It's interesting that you said in a previous thread (Will A Compromise On The Code Work) that you don't have a ticket, changing your tune now eh?? Very convenient. You are a nothing but a troll/ham wannabe, there is no doubt about it. I guess using your logic I can watch ER on t.v. and learn some medical terms, then call myself a doctor. BTW, I used to fly the space shuttle before I became a ham, but I did not want morons e-mailing me so I changed my name....you can call yourself the tooth fairy for all I care, it does not make you a ham.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by K2WH on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Uhh W2BLC, ARRL does not set up band plans. FCC does. Better go back to the drawing board.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by K2WH on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Such stupidity. The ARRL does not control the band plan. The FCC does. Send your stupid email to the
FCC. What a jerk.
K2WH
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by WA4JAF on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Maybe you should donate some of your yard to your neighbors that is only walked on when you mow it! I say fight like hell to keep what we have. I have listened to that portion of 80 meters at times when it was packed with QSO'S. So what's your beef jerkey?
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by WA5U on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
YOU JUST OPEN A NEW CAN OF WORMS THAT MOST COULD OF GOT BY WITHOUT HEARING BUT I GUESS YOU JUST WANTED TO START SOMETHING THAT MOST CW OP DONT WANT TO HERE I AM PROUD TO BE A CW OP AND GLAD TO SAY I PASSED THE FCC CODE REQUIRMENT AT THERE OFFICE BECAUSE I WANTED TO WORK THE SO CALLED EATRA CLASS DX WINDOW. DONT TRY TO START TAKING AWAY WHAT ALL OF US HAVE EARNED. THE FCC WILL PROBALY DO IT WITHOUT SOME HELP OF THE PEOPLE LIKE TRYING TO. JUST A TOUGHT THAT GETS ME MAD AT TIMES. I WAS OFF THE AIR FOR 12 YEARS BOY LOOK AT ALL THE CHANGES FROM 1990 TO NOW I WOULD OF NEVER DREAMED THEY WOULD JUST GIVE YOU A TICKET BUT IT LOOKS AS WE MIGHT BE HEADING THAT WAY HOPE THIS HOBBIE DOES NOT TURN INTO CB
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by AB7R on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Holy cow there's a lot of responses to this. I havn't read them all, no need to. I have the perfect solution. Reduce the phone bands by half for more CW and digi modes. Go use a phone! hihihi
73
Greg
AB7R
dit dit
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by AF4BI on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
How about droping the subject of narrowing my cw portion of the bands, remember,its the place where skilled operators hang out.I worked hard to have these privliges,And yes i do use them,I have been a cw operator ever since i started in amateur radio and devloped a love for it that ssb could never satisify.Find something else to waste your time on!
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thers is no need for so much band space for CW. It is being eliminated and will die off with the old timers (no offense). Us new hams want more phone space as we move into the future.
Steve
NCI-3069
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by N2RRA on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Is it to hard to imagine that maybe there's something wrong with your antenna's or that maybe the propagation was either dead or weak at the time.
Maybe i could go with the reduceing of it ,but never eliminate it,or there will be another ham madder than hell.
I was 18, when i passed my 13wpm code and i too studied hard as hell. Passing the theory was'nt so special for me, because i felt anybody could pass the theory. Passing the morse is what made it feel special.
If i ever thought then that morse would be compromised today then i would have stood a C.B.'er.
73, To all brother's and sister's around the world
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by AF7J on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
surely you jest, maybe you need a better antenna or receiver. Cw is one of the few ways the poor hams around the world can communicate these days.
There are times and conditions that inhibit our ability to hear other stations but that does not mean that they are not in use. I have been on the bands and not heard a single station, even on SSB.This is really evident on 10 meters.
Think a bit more clearly and do some more listening perhaps. Those signals down in the mud may be DX.
73 tony
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KY6R on November 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
When they outlaw paddles only criminals will have straight keys - err, oh, hmmmmm, what?????
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W5EN on November 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Operating on 40 meters tonight @ 0400 z all i heard was CW signals, so let's do away with SSB on 40. You have got to love that type of logic!!!!!
"The rooster crows at the same time the sun rises, therefore, it is the rooster's crow that causes the sun to rise."
Steve W5EN
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by N2RRA on November 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dont get me wrong on this, im guilty too for participateing and no more, but we sound like high school kids, and it's pretty sickening.
I say we at least keep a 5 wpm it's not that hard at all how slower can it get. It's a fair deal, and we dont have to argue about it anymore. I passed the 13wpm morse 13 years ago when i was a kid so i know how you all feel about working hard on something like this. For the new hams i think it's reasonable to them and us they get:
A. Easy to learn
B. Basic fundamental's
C. A requirement for all H.F. previlages
They might not use the morse after the test, but getting all the H.F. previlages will give them a chance to explore and experience. Who knows it might grow on them. Rather have them take a 5 wpm. than nothing at all.
Maybe there's nothing we can do about the F.C.C. abolishing the morse, but we are fighting amongst our selves instead of joining together to see what we can do if we really cared. Our power over the F.C.C. is in numbers and thats how they get their concences reports. Remember it was said before that they had recieved a large number of requests to do away with the morse. It's time we throw back at them what there threw at us.
Gather all your clubs together, and form C.W. event stations where you use the sound of morse to flood the air waves. Call it the special event station "Keeping morse alive" or something instead of sounding like cyber C.B.er's. VOTE and FIGHT: that was the problem with Bush getting tossed the elections(sorry, but no offense to republicans) ,because he didnt really win it, and not everybody practiced their right to VOTE i'm sure, because i'm guilty of that. Yes, not afraid to admit it, but i learned a valuable leason, and that was never to do it again and VOTE next time. We sometimes think nothing could be done and it's inevitable, but did we even try so how would we ever really know.
Dont waist time and get the clubs together right away no matter the propagation level, because it doesnt matter how much D.X. is out there know your neighbor there's plenty of us out there. Imagine all the clubs, and stations around the world sending morse for a good cause. Probably thinking it won't work right well how will you ever know. We set up event stations for other reasons so why not for this. The tradition and lively hood that made us all Hams and should never be forgotten. Beleive me once they succeed in no-code we will be a dieing a breed, and there will be no one left to teach it let alone enjoy and experience it with. FORGOTTEN!
73, N2RRA
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by NN6EE on November 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All CW PRIVILEGES should be RESTORED to ALL classes General and above in the SO-CALLED Amateur EXTRA exclusive zones because they're not really using them anyway!!! And does'nt it make sense that for all who are proponents of continued CODE use that all sub-bands should be opened which were off-limits be RESTORED to ALL to promote CW usage???
It's pure LOGIC Guys!!!
Not everybody wants to get an EXTRA, just like "NO-CODE TECHS" want HF privileges carte-Blanche with NO CODE REQUIREMENT!!!
Give all of us who went the "EXTRA MILE" @ 13wpm and what had been our's in the FIRST PLACE!!!
JIM/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by N0TONE on November 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
75 meter phone would be vacant, too, if the SSB users could use 40 meters.
The reason 80 meter CW is used so lightly at night is because 40 meters is such a fabulous band. However, the "SSB" portion of 40 meters, in the US, is so packed full of foreign broadcast, that SSB ops are driven away from it, and forced to use the far less desirable 80 meter (75 meter) band.
Once the sunspot cycle declines enough that 20 meters at night is hard to use, you'll hear 80 meter CW chock full of signals.
And - please correct your understanding.
There is NO SUCH THING as a CW sub-band. CW is allowed on ALL HAM FREQUENCIES except the new 60 meter band.
It is SSB that is restricted to a sub-band.
As upset as the SSB ops are now, because they thing their bands ought to be wider, just how upset will they get when their bands are suddenly full of CW signals because they insisted that SSB become permitted everywhere?
And the SSB ops WILL lose that war. Right now, CW ops mainly operate with 10-20 watts. Even those of us who have 100 watt rigs, mainly do not run them at full power. Makes them run cooler. In fact, makes them run without the fans even turning on. I hadn't realized until the last field day, that most SSB ops expect to hear the sound of a fan when they operate. Bless CW for the silence in the shack it enables!
If CW ops suddenly have to "compete" for frequency space with SSB ops, then the CW ops will crank the rigs up to 100 watts. A 100 watt CW signal is deafening, compared to a 100 watt SSB signal from the same station.
You very definitely do NOT want to start this war.
AM
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KC4AUF on November 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Since the requirements to get an amateur radio license has continued to be lowered since 1992 with the codeless tech it doesn’t take much to figure out where our hobby is going after the inevitable removeal of CW altogether. In a couple of years everyone can “say” the are and EXTRA. Soon there after the only requirement will just be “buying” the box of Cracker Jacks although I’m sure a forum will be convened to have the Cracker Jack boxes “given” to them. After that you can just use your existing “CB Handle” that you use on the Yaesu, Kenwood or Icom radio you clipped the diode on that you use on “Free Band”.
If you want a preview as to where ham radio is going just click out the link below and look at their DX Cluster and pictures of their Dxpeditions so you can say “ well I’m almost like a real Ham”.
73ssssssss and see you on the flip side good buddies
http://www.alfatango.org/index2.htm
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on November 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>>>by NN6EE on November 15, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
All CW PRIVILEGES should be RESTORED to ALL classes General and above in the SO-CALLED Amateur EXTRA exclusive zones because they're not really using them anyway!!! And does'nt it make sense that for all who are proponents of continued CODE use that all sub-bands should be opened which were off-limits be RESTORED to ALL to promote CW usage???
It's pure LOGIC Guys!!!
Not everybody wants to get an EXTRA, just like "NO-CODE TECHS" want HF privileges carte-Blanche with NO CODE REQUIREMENT!!!
Give all of us who went the "EXTRA MILE" @ 13wpm and what had been our's in the FIRST PLACE!!!
JIM/nn6ee<<<<<<<
Jim, you have to EARN those privileges. It is sad to see an Ole Blank Head like you crying that YOU want something for nothing. If you could pass the Extra exam now then YOU could get the privileges but YOU can't pass the extra exam so be happy with what you have jim and stop asking for a hand-out.
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by K7PIG on November 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sure, why not, reduce all the bands.
AM is just too, too wide.
FM is just too, too wide.
RTTY is just too, too wide.
HI-FI Audio is just too, too much.
PSK31 is just too, too wide.
CW is just so wide.
Yep, reduce it all.
AM'ers and SSB'ers had the fights years ago.
Morse code and No-Morse code had the fights.
No Morse code operators want SSB privileges on HF.
Want-a-bees want, why not?
Change the bands, right on, give the ones that worked so dam hard for the, non-code jaw jackers an allocation in each HF band of 75kcs, that's it and the remainder stays as it is.
The CW portion is large and CW can be operated within each band, end-to-end. Maybe the jaw-jackers that didn't want to learn the required Morse want more jaw-jacking space? Nah, that just couldn't be, could it?
Propagation normally dictates what the heck you hear and don't hear. Not hearing does not mean that frequency is not in use somewhere else in the world, i.e. 10 meters. Others, 2 and 6 meters.
Give us just 50Kcs of CW on every HF band and then the jaw-jackers will want to have that reduced to 9Kcs.
Leave the bands alone.
If you prefer and just don't like what is available in the amateur radio service, go buy your very own bubble-wrap special at your favorite department outlet.
I don't get paid enough in retirement, I want that changed and now.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W8MW on November 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Another gentlemanly discussion containing well reasoned coherant posts from fellow amateurs. The original author endured multiple personal attacks along with second guessing of his operating abilities and the effectiveness of his station equipment.
With all the talk about how ugly things might become in amateur radio if such and such does or doesn't happen, many of these threads indicate it's adequately mucked up already. Fortunately, I don't run into the same kind of people on the air. Even the lonely 80 meter CW ragchewer who calls CQ for an hour at a time isn't full of this venom. He's just damned glad if somebody finally answers.
W2BLC: Bill I have participated in previous attempts to discuss 80 meters and results have been identical. The specific topic was for the most part ignored in favor of generalizations, agendas, philosophies and outright insults.
Personal bias told most of these posters everything they wanted to hear about 80 meters. Does this indicate it will be forever impossible to have rational discussion of Band Plans? Along the lines of the code debates, it seemed to all boil down to the perception of taking away from the elite and giving to the unwashed masses.
I appreciate the posts from the handful of guys who like the idea of lively bands not dead bands. That's what I would like to hear on 80, whether or not the modes being used are my personal cup of tea.
73, Mike W8MW
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by N4KH on November 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Activity is very dependent on time of day, band conditions, etc. I could make the reverse argument for the 40 and 20 meter CW subbands, they are quite crowded at my QTH most of the time.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by K7PIG on November 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ALL NEW BAND-PLAN for all amateur radio frequencies:
All are from the bottom starting band edge
50 Kcs for all modes and highest power levels permissable.
WASTELAND, come on out here to the Arizona Desert, no one on 2 meter simplex. Let's eliminate all simplex and change it to all repeaters? Let's eliminate everything you don't like? Tell the FCC you just don't hear what you want to hear and it needs to be changed?
Why not think about this one: Be thankful for what you have?
|
| |
|
RE: CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by AB7NC on November 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
seems funny allmost tell ur class by ur comments i for one would like it to be 30 wpm to get any ticket
that way would have less operaters on the bands so would not have to worry about the crying over cw test
sometimes less is best
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W2TOM on November 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm a CW operator. I use cw 99% of my on air radio time. I don't think changing the CW portion would be a good idea. It would just bring more SSB-ers down into the CW area. With the NO-code tickets now being issued, everyone and his brother will be spreading out and the bands will become like the CB-er's. CW is a very important part of being a ham. More and more hams are getting away from CW and the results are the crowding in the SSB portion of the bands. Keep CW portion and keep the integrity of TRUE ham radio operation. Long live CW.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by HAMDUDE on November 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I bet he would have heard more signals had he bothered to plug his coax into the back of the rig.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W4HEW on November 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I love Amateur Radio, all aspects of it and the service it provides in an emergency. The CW section of each Amateur band is a very small percent of the total band. When the SSB portions are cluttered, it is nice to be able to go down to the CW section and have a nice QSO. Undoubtedly, the ones that want to take over the CW windows are the very ones that don't use or remember thier CW. What a shame, as CW was what got them a General license to start with. I will fight to keep CW alive and kicking. Harold W4HEW
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by W4HEW on November 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Bill Clark, W2BLC needs to repair his reciever if that's all he heard.
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by KD7KCP on December 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My fellow Hams, now lets be honest about this whole "keep the code get rid of the code " thing. A lot has been written about the prose and cons of keeping the code some on both sides rather well written, and some not. I myself have been rather sharp tongued on the subject, and I have received a few interesting responses because of it. One ham KB9YVG in a obscene response writes "You think like an old timer.. I learned CW in a three hour seesion when I was around 12. I have no particular in interest in HF. You seem like on of those operators who like to have their daughter (obscene response) when they hit that key. I thought '73 met "please don't do my kid", whoops that must be CB talk." and another response by KG4YJR writes "What a moron". It is obvious to all that the defensive vitriolic responses of the "get rid of the code test "crowd is due to the fact that their argument ,no matter how will crafted, is intellectually dishonest. The truth is (and every one knows this ,both pro and con camps) that some are willing to earn their goal and others are not. You see some think that just because they want something they should get it even if it means cheating (changing the rules). Some of these lazy slothful types will argue in an intellectually dishonest manner that their concern is "saving Ham radio" when in fact they simply lack the desire to spend the energy to pass element one. To these lazy slothful types I ask: Why not be honest? And just say the truth ,come on and repeat after me: "I just don’t want to take the five words a minute CW test, so change the rules just for me!". Sincerely;
slow code general,
KD7KCP
73
|
| |
|
CW Band Usage
|
|
|
by AA3EJ on July 1, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Been a CW op for 50 years and spend my time on QRP freq of 7.040, 40m usually very busy. Guess you have to have some good equipment (Elecraft) to hear them..and more important.. patience!
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other Recent Articles
VK5RJ Still Gracing the Airwaves at Age 101:
rec.radio.amateur.moderated -- 5 Yrs. Old:
Tune-In To The World -- Amateur Radio Gets People Talking:
Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:
Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial:
|
