Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
from
Ron Gang, 4X1MK
on
May 17, 2004
Website:
http://www.iarc.org/~4x1mk/
View comments about this article!
Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
As many hams recall, when the WARC bands opened up in the 80's, they were free of contesting and award hunting. In these narrow bands one could settle down to some nice old-time hamming of a slower pace and not be rattled by those wanting you only for an award or contest point.
To this day, the IARU still keeps these bands free of contests, yet, alas, DXCC has added 10, 18 and 24.9 MHz into their lists, and the relaxed nature of these bands has been violated.
A few days ago after finding a clear frequency in the 18 MHz band (I asked twice before CQing), a pleasant QSO was established with a 100 watt Stateside station. Conditions were not fantastic, yet he was above the noise level and we began getting acquainted with each other.
After 5 minutes, adjacent frequency noise began building up making his signal difficult to copy. A few minutes later, a strong station came on frequency and asked me to QSY "with my American friend" as I was "splattering 1 KHz up" and interfering with a rare DX station.
Continuing our QSO became nearly impossible so I gave up, yet decided to tune around to see what had happened.
Well, indeed a rare station in Thailand had come up on frequency nearby, creating a pile-up. Since he couldn't sort through the multitude of callsigns calling him, he decided to "spread them out" and asked them to call him over a span of 20 KHz. (I was told that normally Thai hams are not allowed to use the WARC bands, but because of their king's birthday a temporary exception was being made.)
The SSB portion of 17 meters is but 60 KHz wide, and now one third of the band had been rendered unusable because of this manifestation.
How many QSOs were ruined by this? How often does this kind of thing repeat itself? Is it fair that for the sake of gaining a certificate that those who value a "quickie" QSO over a real conversation cause goodly portions of bands to be trashed?
In my mind there are a two main points:
1. There is no justification to "spread out" pile-ups over valuable spectrum. This cuts down the already narrow useable band with no consideration to other QSOs on the band.
2. THE WARC BANDS SHOULD REVERT TO BEING NATURE RESERVES as they were when first made available. There is already plenty of "DXing" and paper hunting on all the older bands, and if someone has finally worked every conceivable award and honor on the older bands, maybe the time has come that he or she discover what a real personal contact QSO is, and how rewarding it can be to take the time get to know the real people behind the callsigns who are more than just objects used in gaining a place on the honor roll.
Don't get me wrong -- DXCC and contests are fine and have their place. Simply put, there should remain places where those who chose an other style of hamming can enjoy regular QSOs undisturbed.
LET US PETITION OUR NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS TO CAUSE THE IARU TO PASS A RESOLUTION TO LIBERATE THE WARC BANDS FROM THE DXCC AND OTHER AWARDS.
Sincerely,
Ron Gang, 4X1MK
Ron Gang, artist, Kibbutz Urim, Israel
Website: http://www.iarc.org/~4x1mk/
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by GM7CXM on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Ron, nice to see you on eham. I agree with you that the warc bands are a nice place to have a chat, as well you know since you and I have already had several! However as a regular user, mostly of 17, I have to admit that the circumstances you describe, while not unheard of, are not a regular everyday occurrence either. Sure, I've been run off the band a few times, but I rarely have a problem to find a space to call. Live and let live.....
73 de Duncan EA5ON / GM7CXM
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by K0BG on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
17 meters (and 12 when it's open) is one of the few bands where a 100 watt mobile has a chance to work some DX. Whether it involves an award or not.
It isn't the search for DX which clobbers up the band, it's the poor operating practices which seem so prevalent on the bands these days (including 17). How do you propose to fix that problem?
Alan, KØBG
|
| |
|
Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by WN3VAW on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Didn't we just go through this exact same discussion over on www.qrz.com? Right down to the same opening post?
|
| |
|
Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by K2WH on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just operate on 17m and forget about what other amateurs are after. QRM is a fact of life with or without award hunting.
K2WH
|
| |
|
Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by 4X1MK on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Apologies to those who are having a deja vu with this.
I had submitted this to both eHam and QRZ.com last month, and now it is appearing here on eHam.
I now realize that its probably impossible to turn the clock back to the golden age of the WARC bands, so this text will serve as an expression of one ham's feelings on the matter.
So.....
enjoy the great hobby of amateur radio as best you can while remaining considerate to others on the bands.
Live and let live.
Peace, happiness, and of course, good health!
73 de Ron 4X1MK
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by K3UD on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with Ron.
It was agreed that contests would not use these bands. I think it can be argued that DXCC might be the largest ongoing contest of them all with standings being posted all those years in QST, the Honor Roll, the certificates and plaques that are issued, profiles on the DXers... What is really the difference? The argument that DXCC is really a program and not a contest is specious at best. Worked all states is also a program, but no where do I see lists published of who did it.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by K0RFD on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If a DX op spread his pileup over 20 Khz, then he was an inconsiderate operator. There are also occasional inconsiderate contesters who call CQ over existing QSOs and occasional inconsiderate ragchewers who splatter, use bad language, and think they own certain frequencies.
Ham Radio is a diverse hobby. The bands are shared. While 17 Meters has always been contest-free, it has never been ragchewers-only. I don't often frequent 17 because I don't have a good antenna for it, but if I hear DX up there I'll work it.
The problem you encountered was the fault of an inconsiderate operator, not the fault of the DXCC program.
|
| |
|
Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by G0GQK on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As one contributer pointed out, you were troubled by an inconsiderate operator, and lets face it, the bands have quite a number on occasions.
But what about this for an idea, this'll get some OM's
really worked up ! The 30 metre band is CW and digital modes only, so, why not have 17 metres as a ragchewers only band.! Sounds good to me.
|
| |
|
Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by KT4XF on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Since there isn't a Novice license anymore, I make a motion all contesters be limited to the old novice bands, 200W and all !!!!! Now you'll be able to use your IC-7800; FT9999;TS9999 to it's limit ! Anyone second the motion ?
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by K0RFD on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KT4XF wrote:
>Since there isn't a Novice license anymore, I make a
>motion all contesters be limited to the old novice
>bands
I don't think we're talking about contesters here.
The WARC bands are off-limits to contesters.
As I understand the whining of the original poster, he's a ragchewer who wants to be able to control the frequency whether he's actually using it or not.
Contests aren't the issue.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by KB6NU on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K0RFD wrote:
> As I understand the whining of the
> original poster, he's a ragchewer
> who wants to be able to control the
> frequency whether he's actually using
> it or not.
No, you misunderstood what he wrote. He was run off a frequency in the middle of a QSO.
I've had this happen to me several times on 30m recently, especially when the Rodrigues Island DXpedition fired up. Seems to me the WARC bands--or at least some portions of the band--should be free of such foolishness.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by K0RFD on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
He was run off a frequency in the middle of a QSO by a bad operator.
How many have had this happen to us?
Bad Ops don't have anything to do with the rules.
In fact, bad ops exist IN SPITE of the rules.
Focus on the problem, not a totally unrelated solution.
|
| |
|
Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by W4WNT on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While I agree that 17m could be made a nature preserve for conversation, it is not the only band where mobiles can work DX. I was in Florida last year during one of the DX contests and worked 23 countries mobile with 70 watts and a Hamstick antenna on 20m. I run 70 watts so I don't blow the car's power outlet fuse with the 706MkIIG. This was in my spare time, as we were working 12 hour days including weekends on a business system conversion. Mobile operation is lots of fun and I highly recommend it with all the small HF rigs that are now available.
Bill, W4WNT
|
| |
|
Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by K4JRB on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sure this type of thing happens on 17 and 12. Usually
a strong ragchewer moves on top of or right next to a DX station. Thailand recently came on 17 for the first time (the first time authorized) and that is a very hard area to work from SE USA. Just as his signal started peaking A W0 came on two Khz away with a loud
broad signal. He was asked to move and got very angry
this after the DX had been there for over an hour. This is also a common occurance.
I have 350 countries on 17 so there are not many that I have not worked. I think the real problem is running too much power and the appearance of nets on the band.
With decent antennas the power limit should be reduced
to a moderate 200 watts out. I worked over 300 of the countries (er entities per ARRL/IARU) with 100 watts.
I also note the nets (informal or not). The problem with nets is that they come on and use the frequency regardless of whether or not its already in use. Vut the power and eliminate all nets and 17 is a fairly quiet band for ragchewing or working DX.
Dave K4JRB
|
| |
|
Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by K4JRB on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sure this type of thing happens on 17 and 12. Usually
a strong ragchewer moves on top of or right next to a DX station. Thailand recently came on 17 for the first time (the first time authorized) and that is a very hard area to work from SE USA. Just as his signal started peaking A W0 came on two Khz away with a loud
broad signal. He was asked to move and got very angry
this after the DX had been there for over an hour. This is also a common occurance.
I have 350 countries on 17 so there are not many that I have not worked. I think the real problem is running too much power and the appearance of nets on the band.
With decent antennas the power limit should be reduced
to a moderate 200 watts out. I worked over 300 of the countries (er entities per ARRL/IARU) with 100 watts.
I also note the nets (informal or not). The problem with nets is that they come on and use the frequency regardless of whether or not its already in use. Vut the power and eliminate all nets and 17 is a fairly quiet band for ragchewing or working DX.
Dave K4JRB
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by K0RS on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB6NU incorrectly stated:
"No, you misunderstood what he wrote. He was run off a frequency in the middle of a QSO"
No. He was ASKED if he would move to allow some to avail themselves of an exceedingly rare opportunity to work a country on a band where it is are normally prohibited. Isn't this what one is supposed to do? Sounds courteous enough to me.
Apparently this was seen as an unreasonable request.
Yes, 20 kHz is a bit much, especially on 17m. Isn't it possible the Thai operator didn't understand this, not being famliar with the WARC bands? How hard would it be to cut him a little slack?
Why are ragchewers such whiners? "Mommeeeee, the big bad DX'er is picking on me again! Make him stop!"
It's always "MY frequency, MY frequency, I was here first!" It's NEVER "Hey Bubba, let's slide up the band a few and let these guys work this rare one."
I've got an idea. Why don't we just discourage (or outright prohibit) as much activity as possible on ALL the ham bands? Discontinue all awards programs. Stop all contests. Pretty soon it will be so quiet you could hear a pin drop. Then you can explain to the FCC/IARU/ITU/(your national amateur society/licensing authority goes here) why we need any spectrum at all.
|
| |
|
Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by KD5ALU on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I agree that the WARC bands should be contest free. It is a nice place to have a leisurely ragchew while a contest is in progress. I however do not believe that they should be award free. Award QSO's are not the problem. If a rare DX is on a band, there is going to be a pile up just to make the contact. Most are happy just to log the country and are not seeking an award. If they get an award contact, that is a bounus. The pile up is going to occur on any band there is a DX contact, rare or not.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by KD7KFQ on May 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AMEN.... I only ever work the WARC bands on weekends cus the other bands are FULL of nothing but contesting garbage (and I'm sure I'll get a flame mail or two), I'm sick of contesting taking over the bands with short little (lot of time RUDE) contacts that amount to nothing more than two sentences, and I'm sick of it taking over what was once my favorite magazine (CQ). Stay off our WARC bands, it's all we have left. Believe it or not there are a few of us left who actually care about who we're talking to, what's happening in his or her life, what their station is comprised of, the stories they have to tell and share to a younger generation etc. Not all of us are concerned with just a grid square or wallpaper....
Jennifer
KB6JEN & VK2WD
|
| |
|
Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by W6VZV on May 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Award hunting, nets, and the like have ruined 20M SSB. 80M has always been structured to the nth degree such that there is no place for a casual QSO. 40M is not too bad, but of course the broadcast stations ruin it in the evenings. 20M and 80M in particular are almost worthless for those of us who mainly value ham radio as a means of having a conversation with someone via radio. I agree that it would be a shame if this happened to 17M and the other WARC bands. Right now these bands are the way ham radio was 20 or 30 years ago--unstructured and unstratified.
Having said that, 17M is still pretty good almost all of the time. But I agree--let's keep it that way.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by KG4APT on May 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
'80M has always been structured to the nth degree such that there is no place for a casual QSO '
I am a ragchewer. It is for the most part all I do on the bands. I sure have had some very worthwhile conversations on 80 meters. I have talked to many interesting people with a variety of opinions on a variety of subjects. For me it's a not what you do, but how you do it kinda thing. I am NOT a dxer. I DO however have much respect for many who are. I tend to judge the operating practices of dxers on an individual rather than lump sum basis. Of course this is how I try to judge the operating practices of all hams. This is how I prefer to be judged. I enjoy the nets I participate in. This would be for the most part (shudder) the PALS net on 2 meters. You are welcome to join, of course conversely you are welcome not to. Live and let live works for me. Please understand this is just my opinion your milage may vary. P.S. Wanna get back to nature? It's outside.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by V73NS on May 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
(more deja vu)
DX'ing is a major part of the hobby.
Also, not everyone is a paper chaser. Some like the challenge and some just like the fun of working DX. Only 20% of my contacts send QSL's so they all aren't seeking awards. So you are saying anyone who seeks a new country is a "contester."
I qualify for DXCC but will never apply for it. I know what I have worked and that's fine with me.
During contest weekends I am mostly in the WARC bands, not being a contester myself. The people I work on those weekends are likewise not in the contest.. They are enjoying their everyday thrill of DX'ing in the non-contest filled WARC bands. Pure and simple.
Dxpeditions also use WARC bands… as each band has slightly different propagation characteristics.
DX fone stations that listen up 20 to 100 kc's should be flogged. I agree they wipe out the band.
CW DX usually is up 1 or 2.
I enjoy operating the WARC bands. I'm rare DX, I generate pileups... should I ban myself?
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by K0RFD on May 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
V73NS Wrote:
>I enjoy operating the WARC bands. I'm rare DX, I
>generate pileups... should I ban myself?
Naah. If you did that, the whiners would have less to whine about.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by 4X1MK on May 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINUM
"Argument Against the Man"
A course in logic in college years ago revealed certain invalid forms of argument, interesting to note. The argument against the man, used frequently by politicians and lawyers, denigrates the person presenting an opposing view, rather than dealing with the matter at hand.
The holder of the other view is called a pejorative name. The name caller's logic is that if his opponent is de-legitimized, then the the opponent's viewpoint also loses its legitimacy.
The writer of "the whiners would have less to whine about", by using this kind of argumentation, side-steps the issue by name-calling.
Let us respect our fellow hams by debating in a true and honorable manner.
Live and let live,
73 de Ron 4X1MK
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by V73NS on May 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
DX'ing is not against the spirit of the WARC bands.
It is as much a part of the hobby on WARC bands as shooting the breeze is to you. One does not rule out the other.
DX'ing is not contesting. Some chase DX "because it's there." Some like to bust the pile up mobile or QRP.
Paper chasing is not contesting. It is something which one does as part of their enjoyment. It is a personal challenge they opted to step up to.
How do you feel about nets which are for to sole purpose of stations seeking a WAS award? That’s not a net, that’s contesting? Or its fine since it’s a net? Some don’t like the idea of an arranged QSO or hunting the spots for DX… other do. Should we prevent them from seeking their form of enjoyment on the frequencies none of us own?
Nets often feel they own the frequency. They do not, nor should they be excluded from asking "is the frequency in use?" prior to conducting operations. If it is in use, they can announce that there is a scheduled net, wait a few minutes for the stations to clear, or move a few kc's. They were there first and moving the net a couple kc's will not ruin anyone's day. The brow beating and verbal abuse on the air does nothing but damage the hobby. Yes, other should be polite and give way... but perhaps, like you, some feel their single cause holds all the weight in this matter and will dig their heels in.
No one has an innate right to any given frequency just because it's published.
The only people aware of most nets are the people who take part in them or know that they can use a given freq until a given time, and yield to the next group. I am aware that several nets use the same frequency at different times.
Special event and DXpedition stations, if they give a frequency, will usually state “plus or minus the QRM”. They know they don’t own the airwaves and are flexible.
Next, let's talk propagation, conditions and antennas.
A given station on a given frequency can not be heard by all stations that may be on that frequency. Because of this, there are often times when you get someone on top or next to you. They likely could not hear you. It’s not the end of the world… deal with it. We’ve all been on both sides of that fence – remember that.
Many hams feel they must operate QRO for armchair signals when they could flip off the amp and make others on the band happy and still have effective communications.
Most ham’s I know would yield to a pile up on a rare station. Most ham’s I know would also not expect to take over a frequency. There are good and bad operators. Do not make their errors into a traumatic event. Move down the dial, chalk it up to the world being a very large place, chuckle and remember what it was like when your hands were shaking so hard the first time you worked a DX station.
Enjoy the hobby and do not attempt to stop others from doing the same.
"Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence."
-- Robert Frost
73
Neil
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by W1RFI on May 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> The 30 metre band is CW and digital modes only, so,
> why not have 17 metres as a ragchewers only band.!
Why do we keep thinking that we can solve all of the problems in amateur radio by breaking ourselves into smaller and smaller pieces?
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by V73NS on May 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Second Ed's comment that is... not to make 17 FONE for rag chewing only.
There's 75M for that cranky, "you have to be 59 and 40 over to talk" crowd. Next thing you knwo 17 Fone would be full of the 12-15 kc wide hi-fi processor folks.
CW - the calm, cool and collected operating mode.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by AB5XZ on May 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I disagree that DXCC is a contest, with the possible exception of the few hams who want to stay on the DXCC Honor Roll, and the still fewer hams who want to stay at #1 Honor Roll.
During a contest weekend, the activity level on all bands goes up all over the world. That's not really the case with DXCC, although the appearance of a "rare one" will cause many hams to automatically QSY as soon as the spot appears (I suspect that some of them are set up to automatically start DVK calling at full power).
While we're banning things, I would like to ban DX spots during contests (which would of course delete the "assisted" classes). Spots tend to create pileups where there don't need to be pileups.
|
| |
|
Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by W3DCG on May 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting, Ron. Tnx for your card, I really enjoyed seeing your work on your website, also.
I must be living in a DX News void.
Are you saying that WARC Q's now can count towards the ARRL DXCC award?
If so, wow, that's news to me!
I like you Ron,(artist and all) CW, etc!
But I can't say how many Q's I made on 30m, where I was a bit disapointed that it did not count towards DXCC.
This is when I wanted to log DXCC in 3 months having returned to ham radio with a new call/license, after 22 years of ZERO ham radio. My prior license expired and I knew it did but don't know when.
Anyway, I did log 100 (95% non contest) in time, and since doing that have not bothered with the task of finding the cards, etc etc. I figure well, I don't have the paper to prove it, but it's in piles of cards scattered about here and there!
VY 73 OM.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on May 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1. There is no justification to "spread out" pile-ups over valuable spectrum. This cuts down the already narrow useable band with no consideration to other QSOs on the band.
I agree. But, I blame this on poor DX operating practices (except for when a brand new country hits the air).
“Don't get me wrong -- DXCC and contests are fine and have their place. Simply put, there should remain places where those who chose an other style of hamming can enjoy regular QSOs undisturbed.”
To me, DXing is a “regular QSO”. But, I don’t think we should limit non-DXing QSO to a small part of any band. But, it would be fine with me if the ARRL ceased DXCC for all of the new bands.
Or, maybe we should make 30 meters the rag chew only band? Even frequencies for North-South Qs, and odd frequencies for East-West Qs? First 50% of a phone sub band for DX only? First 50% of a CW sub band for DX only? First 10% of every DX sub-band for long path Qs? Nix on any DX station rag chewing in the DX sub-bands!
73
Bob
|
| |
|
Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on May 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Whether or not WARC contacts are allowed or disallowed for DXCC or any other award, when a rare DX station gets on the air, there WILL be a pile-up.
And I doubt the IARU would or could prohibit DX stations from operating on the WARC bands. That's just not in their authority. And how would you define a "DX" station? If you hear that Thai station, that's DX for operators in the U.S., or the U.K., or Germany, but not for another Thai station. Any Amateur can operate within the authority of their license, on any band allowed, whether they live in Cucamonga, CA or Timbucktu.
I'm afraid we just have to live with the perceived problem.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by 4X1MK on May 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Cy...
Nice hearing from you!
Gonna let the Pandora's box I opened with the original posting rest. Never realized I was stirring things up so much!
Glad you got my QSL for 30m ...
have no idea if it counts for DXCC,
yet happy we had the QSO... it's a fun band.
I just put up a photo gallery of some of my ham activities on the web site...
http://www.iarc.org/~4x1mk/4X1MK_ham_gallery.html
Enjoyed seeing you and your family on the mountain top in your eHam profile.
All the best to you and all reading this.
73
Ron 4X1MK
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by NN6EE on May 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I guess maybe some Guys are missing the whole point of Amateur Radio and frequency usage, as long as everybody does'nt get their hackles raised because of any SMALL infraction and handles it in a CIVIL manner then Gentlemen I'd say "WE HAVE NO PROBLEM!!!"
Jim/ee
|
| |
|
Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by LA6FJA on May 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just want to say one thing about this situation, and if you a "novice or new one" to the band it can be a problem.
Another thing is the propagation and skip on the band, the propagation can be scewed and mixed up so there can be completly difficult to copy, frequently people makes a wide split to receiver fast to keep up rate, and then also people shuts up... all of us have heard of those which are QRG police men....
Knowledge about how to take care of a pile up and how the condition is to other parts of the world on that band... and it all depends again back to propagation knowledge.... and operation procedure and know-how to be a ham....
most hams can use propagation calculation program to take care if this. but many hams not have a computer... or may just operate HF one time per year....
There is so many times DXpeditions to rare places, and this time it was their first time to operate on WARC bands... Imagine how many times a rare one have occupied planty of khz when band is wide open..
Else you can eliminate what you want to hear by changing antenna from vertical to horizontal. or from Yagi to GP etc... so dont need to hear all the others from area's u dont want to hear.. :)
My opinion is that WARC is very light used... many pirate uses lots of room in the bands untouched by that we breaks in and occupied the QRG's..
But as a CW operator I love 10 Mhz alot and I can also lay in upper part of the band a relax with digitale QSOes...
Well band changes and people changes all the times, we are all hams and our hobby is divided into many categories... and at least all new hams are not always given the best training or instruction from us "old and we know best" hams.. coz we believe that the new ones knows everything, and we have also forgotten how it was when u for first time was on the bands.... we have everybody done mistakes.....
I am 25 yrs old and expired a lot of this, either from a dxpedition or where I have been .
But WARC will be contest free band, and DXCC award has nothing with contesting.
I have used 17m and 30m for the past 10 years and I like the band, but I'm sure the band is into good shape or "close to nature"
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by VE6XX on May 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Greetings All: It is an on-going source of amazement to me that comments, observations & opinions expressed here generate such a variety of responses. The rigidity of the responses in general are also interesting to say the least. I compliment ALL the responders for maintaining civility, & refraining from attacking those whose opinions are at odds with theirs on a personal basis. 17 metres is my usual band to operate during daylight hours. Generally, operators are courteous & considerate. From a personal perspective I applaud the fact that the band is free from contests. I have no axe to grind with those who contest & indeed I have given many contacts to contesters who asked for the contact.
I do appreciate having a band to "ragchew" on without fighting the kilowatt signals from band edge to band edge. The DX pile-ups are not my favourite happenstances either, but as has been accurately & adroitly pointed out by others, if a DX station appears many amateurs will want to work the station & so the pile-up is inevitable. C'est la vie. I operate a lot of SSB mobile from my vehicle on a daily basis, & 17 metres affords quality contacts for 100 watt mobiles.
If one is truly disturbed by the DXers & contesters, then operation on the CW portion of most any band should prove quiet enough for anyone's tastes:)
Thank you all for your input.
CHEERS! Brian, VE6XX
|
| |
|
Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by PH1PH on May 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't wish to be too pedantic, but it's NOT the IARU who issue DXCC - it's the ARRL.
There is a difference...
145, Pete PH1PH - G7ECN
|
| |
|
Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by VE2DC on May 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Get serious!
The best hope for eventual expansion of these bands (especially 30M) is in using them...
As for congestion... you've got to be kidding... if 10, 17 and 24 were any quieter the ITU might take them back ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Get the WARC Bands Back to Nature
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on May 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It's fine to say "USE the bands" (10, 12, 15 M, etc.) but propagation takes precedence, and that is at least in part determined by the sunspot cycle. If propagation is poor or non-existant, neither Amateur Radio operators nor any other service will have little use or luck on those bands.
|
| |
|
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:
|
