Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: "Search and Pounce" isn't 99% of the time  (Read 9258 times)
N7JI
Member

Posts: 4




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: November 08, 2010, 03:29:17 PM »

As I typically run QRP with a wire antenna, it's hard to command a frequency.  I once had access to a REALLY big tower and tribander, and could grab and hold a frequency with ease and achieve good rates.  However, with my present station iteration, S&P (using spots, IMO, takes all of the fun out of it) is the only way to go.

I sometimes even turn off the preamp to make sure I'm hearing stations (if assumed to be QRO) that would likely be able to hear me...unless it's a QRP contest.

de Scott N7JI
Logged
G1WFK
Member

Posts: 28




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: November 09, 2010, 01:02:26 AM »

  Hi.Tim. Well said.Search and pounce = Skill.  Point and click on cluster spots = shooting dead fish in a barrel. Your score using search and pounce may be lower,but at least you did it yourself, not have the contacts served to you on a plate. When are,"CQ" and the League going to award certificates to PC,s, often it is they who do most of the work, so they should be awarded, contest prizes,DXCC, WAZ,WAS,IOTA,etc.  73 de Mike.G1WFK Smiley
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3833




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: November 09, 2010, 03:56:28 PM »

 hen are,"CQ" and the League going to award certificates to PC,s, often it is they who do most of the work, so they should be awarded, contest prizes,DXCC, WAZ,WAS,IOTA,etc. 

Well, maybe.

Consider, however, what a top HF contest/DX station looked like just 50 years ago:

- Receiver with a couple of hardware filters, readout to 1 kc. and not much else. No memories, no DSP, no noise blanker, etc.

- Transmitter that required tuneup and spotting.

The pair could not transceive, and changing bands or even frequency within a band could require significant time and adjustments.

- Paper logging and duping

- Bug or basic electronic keyer

And that's about it, except for antennas, which haven't really changed all that much. Some folks might have a CQ wheel, a second receiver, etc., but the basics were pretty limited.

Such a station cost a small fortune if really good equipment was used (a Collins 75A-4, the standard of comparison for many years, cost $700 back then - without extra filters or the reduction knob. $700 doesn't sound like much until you realize that $5000/year gross was considered a good middle-class income). It also took up a lot of space in the house and required a considerable amount of skill to use and keep running.

Since those days, we've seen:

- Transceivers
- Rigs that require no tuneup
- Memories, dual VFOs, noise blankers, DSP, greatly improved filters
- Readout almost to the Hz, excellent dynamic range, small size
- PCs that can log, send, dupe, and directly interface to the rig.
- Greatly reduced size, weight and cost (of rigs - antennas and the house to put them on/in is another story).

Seems like progress to me.


So where do we draw the line? Computer logging? Transceiving? No-tuneup rigs?

Seems to me the line is drawn where there's outside help. And the rules already deal with that; if a packet cluster or spotting net is used, you're in a different class than the isolated station.

The great thing is that today we have so many more choices.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!