On Nov 18, 1:45*pm, "SX-25" wrote:
You are so right, Tim. If you do a search on this reflector you will see
that I initiated (what became) a heated thread over a year ago about that
very fact. There is no reason whatsoever that CW ops should not be using the
space above 3600. In fact, I believe one of my tirades went so far as
suggest we CW ops start using the traditional phone spectrum above 3800 for
CW. Why not? It's legal and they took our spectrum so why shouldn't we
exercise our prerogative to use spectrum where we're not jammed in
elbow-to-elbow?

The purpose of my most recent posting, however, was just to try to establish
some common spot where vintage enthusiasts might listen with the hope of
finding someone running something other than Kensues or YaeCOMs. Maybe
they'll even be able to have something to talk about other than "RST QTH
NAME WX AGE and BEEN HAM..YRS" before saying 73.

One can dream, anyway.

QTX ZUT es 73 WA9VLK



Why do you think that you must stick to 3500 to 3600 khz. *Last I
looked, cw was permited from 3500 to 4000 khz. *Why not use 3600 to
3625 khz? *It is virtually dead here on the West Coast. *I have found
that 7100 to 7125 khz is a great place to work cw on 40 meters,
especially with my rock bound boatanchors. *There is no reason not to
do the same for 80 meters.

Tim AA6DQ

You are so right about the canned qso's. I have found that a
boatanchor transmitter is the best ice breaker for getting a rag chew
going. Now if we could just get DX stations to carry on a qso of more
than 15 seconds...

A side comment - as bad as some canned cw qso's are, PSK-31 is much
worse. I stopped using PSK-31 when I finally go around to configuring
my PSK-31 software and realized my qso was reduced to clicking three
different buttons.

Tim AA6DQ

Nobody wrote:

You are so right about the canned qso's. I have found that a
boatanchor transmitter is the best ice breaker for getting a rag chew
going. Now if we could just get DX stations to carry on a qso of more
than 15 seconds...


A side comment - as bad as some canned cw qso's are, PSK-31 is much
worse. I stopped using PSK-31 when I finally go around to configuring
my PSK-31 software and realized my qso was reduced to clicking three
different buttons.


Doesn't your keyboard work? I have macros for a couple things, like CQ,
and manually type most of my other stuff.

No one is making you use the macros.


And the comment is specious anyhow. If PSK31 is so bad because of these
clicks you seemed to be forced into using, then why do CW Ops end out
such shorthand instead of spelling out the entire word?

When I was first learning Morse, I kept thinking that I was not copying
correctly. It wasn't until I asked around to more experienced ops that
I found out the shorthand to CW operating. Modern day Morse comms were
the original L33T!

gd om tu de n3li

On Nov 25, 7:39*am, Michael Coslo wrote:
Nobody wrote:

You are so right about the canned qso's. *I have found that a
boatanchor transmitter is the best ice breaker for getting a rag chew
going. *Now if we could just get DX stations to carry on a qso of more
than 15 seconds...
A side comment - as bad as some canned cw qso's are, PSK-31 is much
worse. *I stopped using PSK-31 when I finally go around to configuring
my PSK-31 software and realized my qso was reduced to clicking three
different buttons.

Doesn't your keyboard work? I have macros for a couple things, like CQ,
and manually type most of my other stuff.

No one is making you use the macros.

* * * * And the comment is specious anyhow. If PSK31 is so bad because of these
clicks you seemed to be forced into using, then why do CW Ops end out
such shorthand instead of spelling out the entire word?

When I was first learning Morse, I kept thinking that I was not copying
correctly. It wasn't until I asked around *to more experienced ops that
I found out the shorthand to CW operating. Modern day Morse comms were
the original L33T!

gd om tu de n3li

My keyboard works just fine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with
shorthand, either via cw abreviations of PSK 31 canned responses. The
Q signals were the 1st form of canned messages.
What I observed with PSK31 was
1. most PSK31 ops tended to fall into the "3 click" qso mode after a
few months of operating and
2. more PSK-31 ops than CW ops tended to go for the rst/qth... type
qso rather than rag chewing.
Numerous attempts to get PSK31 ops to go beyond the "3 click" qso
failed.
In addition, several ops became impatient with my insisting on typing
out my responses. (BTW I type well over 45wpm so it is not a speed
thing per say). This lead me to investigate the canned response type
qso to see what the attraction was.

Perhaps you might want to review a few of the late 60's QST and CQ
magazine editorials that brought up the same observations with regard
to RTTY. Only the names change, the observations remain the same.

Tim AA6DQ

Nobody wrote:
Perhaps you might want to review a few of the late 60's QST and CQ
magazine editorials that brought up the same observations with regard
to RTTY. Only the names change, the observations remain the same.

The argument is valid for all modes, including even SSB.

"You're five and nine OM."

"Please repeat."

"You're five and nine.

"I don't copy, can you repeat that?"

"I said you were five and nine."

"Oh, yeah. You're five and nine too."

"What did you say? I missed that."
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."