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

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
 1 
 on: Today at 02:51:41 AM 
Started by VK5EEE - Last post by VK5EEE
Excellent dear Neighbours: Magyarorszag, Jugoslavije, Ellas  Grin

Free the world -- publish and bring on the fully automated robot stations that could even, eventually take over "CW" contests with "DCW".

It is also time that all the software writers stop labeling "CW" on their software interfaces / GUI and call it by the proper name DCW.

Digital CW is not real CW -- Morse Code was designed for HUMAN BRAIN and Gerke did a great job on that.

Still the computer DCW cannot beat the human brain CW.

FT8 and the other JT modes all use Internet to one level or another, and in the end the human being is not needed, you guys will prove it.

THIS IS WHY the bottom 50 kHz of each band (a bit less on some bands) MUST BE continued to be EXCLUSIVELY for HUMAN CW MODE.

The only way to safeguard that in the future, is not "Gentlemen's Agreements" or Band Plans where QRO stations on this forum make FUN of QRP frequencies in the band plan, and see no reason to keep them clear for QRP, BUT those same stations  do NOT dare to go onto WSPR nor FT8 frequencies and call CQ or CQ DX in CW, but think that QRP CW doesn't have the CLOUT so is fair game for the "I can transmit anywhere after I asked QRL?" mentality.

BUT I have shown that QRP CW DOES have the clout and can take on even these fake DX Pedo$ who wreck entire bands with 30 kHz or wider pile ups, simply by going onto the "DX Pedo" frequency to call the stations that caused the DQRM wrecking your REAL DX QSO one by one and telling them QSY QRL.Then the elephants without callsigns all stampede telling VK5EEE LID UP UP UP and the DX Pedo is QRT.

Sadly, it takes the numbers OR the actions of a few who know what they are doing, to put things once again right to amateur radio.

DXCC has lost its value and the acceptance of FT8 as Digital for DXCC is surely the last straw, even they got away with accepting internet-assisted DCW "5NN" printouts as proof of a "valid" "CW" QSO for DXCC, and they made fun and hounded the brave and righteous true DXer Jean 5T0JL/ON8RA with his factual evidence that split pile ups are not necessary for DX -- ONLY for those DX terrori$t$ who for big money go to some remote rock or DX location and need to put out 30,000 "QSO" on a single weekend, instead of a real resident over a year with true RST and an exchange of name and 73 -- as did Jean 5T0JL and many other "old school" DXers.

There are other one-man DX operations, that used their own money, I know of some of them, but they also suffered wipe out from other big DX Pedos and/or big contests where there is not even the bottom 10 kHz of the CW band reserved for real DX QSOs any more.

With greatest respect to my South East European Colleagues for their great projects that will be in public domain and expose the farce.

Time in future to bring about REAL DXCC, and to get the numbers of all CW operators who believe in human CW, into a big international CW Union, to push for the exclusive CW bands at the level of licensing legislation: bottom 25 kHz (or 50kHz) to be ONLY available on the amateur radio license for those that pass a REAL CW Exam, and the government must pay the examiners so that those who are suffering now without job and in old age, can again get a part time job as CW Examiners.

Thirdly, to then campaign at international level of UN/ITU to have the traditional original amateur radio bands at 160, 80, 40, 20, 15 and 10 meters in FULL to be granted to the Amateur Radio Service IN PERPETUITY so that NO private government (most governments are now private entities outsourcing everything to their private mafia friends on behalf of the real owners of government, the big companie$) can give away at ANY point or time in future those frequency bands to any other service taking it away from us.

NOT ONE so-called national amateur radio society nor it's "collective" the IARU have even CONSIDERED to lobby for this NECESSARY law -- which should be granted by ITU/UN as recognition and APPRECIATION that EVERYTHING they now have with respect to radio communications and much of other technologies is THANKS TO RADIO AMATEURS and thus must never be encroached upon until the Day of Judgement.

Forward!

 2 
 on: Today at 02:42:31 AM 
Started by N7NSL - Last post by G3RZP
$1 each at Dayton the other year, so I stocked up - both plugs and sockets. If you get really stuck, let me know.

Peter G3RZP

 3 
 on: Today at 01:32:31 AM 
Started by VK5EEE - Last post by M0LEP
In the DQ (Disunited Queendom aka UK) at least, our callsigns are ours for life. AND you can tell how long someone has been licensed, from the callsign. I hope that does not stop.

Sometimes folk manage to get callsigns transferred, though I think Ofcom usually limit that to direct family. The "how long" is rather approximate, and works best for "A" class calls with prefixes G4 or earlier, but rather less well for "B" class calls, and you'll be lucky to manage an accuracy better than a decade with the more recently issued prefixes because the suffix is potentially randomly selectable.

England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all small enough not to require call areas  Smiley

...though the regional modifier system does cause some confusion. A year or three back it seemed that Ofcom might start issuing region-specific callsigns individually, after they issued an updated "Guidance for Radio Amateurs" document for comment. The confusion this would cause to existing callsign holders was, eventually, communicated to Ofcom, and the final version of the document more nearly matched reality.

I've only used the plain and "W" versions of my call so far, but I can see the "M", "I" and "D" versions getting SOTA outings one of these days.

The longest call I've had to use so far is the eleven-character 5Z4/M0LEP/P.

 4 
 on: Today at 12:58:17 AM 
Started by VK5EEE - Last post by SV5DKL
YT9TP: Hi there. A video with detailed steps will be uploaded to YouTube very soon. It will be so easy to follow, anyone will have the way to set up such a FT8 Robot, even with very basic PC knowledge.

CU soon!

 5 
 on: Today at 12:53:04 AM 
Started by OM2GM - Last post by OM2GM
Dear friends,
I was on casual base check the test results of Sherwood Engineering by the reading the table on http://www.sherweng.com/table.html address.
Few days ago it stopped working.
Is there some technical problem or Sherwood has stopped.
Please, advice..
Thanks
Tibor OM2GM

 6 
 on: Today at 12:45:19 AM 
Started by NEVBEN - Last post by NA4IT
If you don't need all the mast, cut it off...

 7 
 on: Today at 12:01:48 AM 
Started by NEVBEN - Last post by NEVBEN
The elevations marked on the map are the elevation above the site, not the absolute elevation.  The cities on the right side are in valleys at the same elevation as the site.




 8 
 on: Today at 12:00:13 AM 
Started by VK5EEE - Last post by YT9TP
SV5DKL i believe you.

As programmer I also did the similar things to other software (not ham radio related). I can confirm it is very easy to control any Windows application from other application buy reading contents of anything displayed on the screen (and even setting hooks to notify you on changes) and simulating keyboard, mouse or any other user input. That has been done since Windows exists.

That said, I guess the best thing to do would be to release such automating software and make it available to anyone. Using automated modes would became quite a messy and kill the interest.

In old days being ham meant to have skill. Nowadays all you have to know is how to push few buttons.

 9 
 on: Yesterday at 11:58:50 PM 
Started by NEVBEN - Last post by NEVBEN
Thank you for your interest.  My initial question was a hypothetical one so I could learn to understand a principle involved in practical application.  If you're willing to consider more details about an application I have, I will show two diagrams.  The use for the site is amateur communications on 2 meters FM with other specific amateurs in the field with mobile-equipped vehicles or HT's.  I am usually the one in the field and I could be anywhere on the map, but I am usually in the valley around the site (for which there is no challenge) or one of the cities or towns marked in yellow.  The mountains have several amateur repeaters across the screen from left to right.  With the repeaters, everything can easily be done with HT's, but I am trying to maximize the effectiveness of simplex to and from this site.

The site has antenna restrictions.  Because I don't have more than 1 acre, the county limits the absolute height.  Because of an HOA the appearance is also restricted.  A yard-arm on the mast is not possible.  An external yagi is also not possible.  Basically, it is restricted to a "stick" that is colinear to the mast or very close to it, or something otherwise very stealthy.  The mast, unlike my hypothetical example, has a roof below it.  It has to work with HT's, so AM, SSB, or 80m NVIS are out.

I am using an F23H now.  It is working fairly well over the mountains to a mobile in the city at 2000' elevation above the site, but I believe the signal is diffracting through the pass and there is a lot of shadowing by the mountains.  Coverage is spotty.  Calculating the distance (8 miles to the ridge) and the height (about 4000' average), I need radiation at an angle about 5 degrees to get over the mountains.

The F23H is exceeding the height limit.  I have 30 days to fix it.  I can mount a Diamond X200A 16" down the mast from the top.  I believe it will work better than an X30A pushed all the way to the top of the mast.  It might even work better than the F23H if a slightly higher angle of radiation will help get over the mountains.  Other alternatives might be a rotatable beam in the attic.  It might have 5dB gain compared fairly to the X200A, but could lose it all at the lower height (about 14' to clear the rafters) and being inside the attic and below the roofline of the other houses.






 10 
 on: Yesterday at 11:36:53 PM 
Started by K3NRX - Last post by WO7R
If anyone wants to see the difference between high sunspots and low sunspots, spend a bit of time on the CQ Marathon site and look at the scores.

The scores vary some as the sunspots go up and down, but vary surprisingly little for all of that.  It also shows that the gap between the kilowatt stations and the 100 watt stations is less each year, too.

The DX is out there, it is our job to figure out how to work it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!