RadioBanter - 3599 kc's

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Boatanchors (https://www.radiobanter.com/boatanchors/)

- - 3599 kc's (https://www.radiobanter.com/boatanchors/148045-3599-kcs.html)

Great idea! Only one comment that is not really worth mentioning but
nevertheless: "Why restrict it to just one freq? What's wrong with a
band from 3560 to 3599?" This would give less qrm on one freq. 73,
John K4ZYF : ps: hallicrafters sx-117 & ht-44 here, solely cw.

That's a great idea John. My preference would be a segment of the band for
the very reason you
cited. Unfortunately "they" didn't leave us CW ops very much to work with so
I thought setting a
so-called "calling frequency" as a place to monitor would initiate the
activity and then additional stations hearing the activity could plop down
above and below the 3599 frequency. But, SURE! I am "crystalled up" with
many frequencies between 3560 to 3599 but unfortunately it doesn't seem that
portion of the band has developed any "identity" as a vintage equipment
spot.

Last night I listened all evening on 3599. I only heard one signal, a VE2. I
was otherwise engaged so i could not go back to him to find out of he was
responding to the posting and using vintage gear. I am leaving my NC-303 on
3599
when I am in the shack and am hoping the idea catches on.

3546 was once a good calling frequency and it was reasonably populated with
vintage stations. But unfortunately it has become swamped with guys looking
for a sliver of spectrum ever since "they" robbed CW ops of their spectrum.
Meanwhile 3600 to 3700 sets quiet, populated by (at most) 2 or 3 QSOs in a
given evening. Brilliant idea.

QTX es 73 WA9VLK

On Nov 18, 7:06*am, "SX-25" wrote:
That's a great idea John. My preference would be a segment of the band for
the very reason you
cited. Unfortunately "they" didn't leave us CW ops very much to work with so
I thought setting a
so-called "calling frequency" as a place to monitor *would initiate the
activity and then additional stations hearing the activity could plop down
above and below the 3599 frequency. But, SURE! I am "crystalled up" with
many frequencies between 3560 to 3599 but unfortunately it doesn't seem that
portion of the band has developed any "identity" as a vintage equipment
spot.

Last night I listened all evening on 3599. I only heard one signal, a VE2.. I
was otherwise engaged so i could not go back to him to find out of he was
responding to the posting and using vintage gear. I am leaving my NC-303 on
3599
when I am in the shack and am hoping the idea catches on.

3546 was once a good calling frequency and it was reasonably populated with
vintage stations. But unfortunately it has become swamped with guys looking
for a sliver of spectrum ever since "they" robbed CW ops of their spectrum.
Meanwhile 3600 to 3700 sets quiet, populated by (at most) 2 or 3 QSOs in a
given evening. Brilliant idea.

QTX 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, 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

I like using crystal control in some of my rigs and having a small band
where rock bound cw rigs can flourish will do wonders to get them on the
air. Vfos are also fine, but tuning + or - a few khz might be rewarding.

What a joy to fire up an old BA after grinding a crystal. We can grind
numerous crystals to the small window, to allow us to QSY.

Just restored an old crystal controlled Handbook rig, using a 6DQ6B.

73, Colin K7FM

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

John wrote:
Great idea! Only one comment that is not really worth mentioning but
nevertheless: "Why restrict it to just one freq? What's wrong with a
band from 3560 to 3599?" This would give less qrm on one freq. 73,
John K4ZYF : ps: hallicrafters sx-117 & ht-44 here, solely cw.
You know DDS chips have become so cheap that it's possible to build a
three chip solution (DDS, uC, and buffer amp) that will replace ANY rock
from 1.8-7.3 MHZ. OK, it's not vintage and more power to the guys that
can re-grind old FT243 rocks to change frequency. But with technology
changes some of our old rigs now might need outboard help, like those
who restore vintage TV sets now need to use set top boxes to get reception.

SX-25 wrote:

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?

I guess you are likewise most happy to have SSB in "your" CW segment?

The band segments are gentlemens agreements. Be a gentleman. I find the
agreement to be helpful, not a bad thing at all.

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.

Ahh. One of the most amusing things about some Hams is that they are
such control freaks that they demand other Hams behave exactly the same
way. Some great unwashed said "Roger" on your repeater. Quick - send him
and the FCC a letter telling him to stay off of it. Don't like
ragchewing ? - "Get those kids off my lawn!"

Seriously, Give it a try. Operate CW wherever the mood suits you. Maybe
open up on the Maritime net frequency. They have no more right to that
frequency than you do. And since CW is a superior mode, shouldn't you
have precedence anyhow? What will eventually happen is that Once SSB Ops
find out it's a brave new world without any border, they'll move down
into your backyard, and any idea who will win that little range war?

I think it's great to have vintage enthusiasts to have a watering hole.
I wouldn't think that comments like :

vintage enthusiasts might listen with
the hope of finding someone running something other than Kensues or
YaeCOMs.

Make it sound like you look at it as some sort of elite group, and
possibly not very friendly, except to those who are worthy.

Just sayin'

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

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."

Jeezy Louisy...lighten up.

I started this whole thing just to suggest a calling frequency. The thread
is turning into
a moral indictment.

This is most likely the reason I find myself working on vintage gear a lot
more than
operating it.

The band segments are gentlemens agreements. Be a gentleman. I find the
agreement to be helpful, not a bad thing at all.

Are these the same "gentlemen's agreements" we enjoy on contest weekends?
Try to operate and NOT be in the contest!

Ahh. One of the most amusing things about some Hams is that they are such
control freaks that they demand other Hams behave exactly the same way.
Some great unwashed said "Roger" on your repeater. Quick - send him and
the FCC a letter telling him to stay off of it. Don't like ragchewing ? -
"Get those kids off my lawn!"

Maybe some of us a sick of righteous snobbery from guys who didn't get into
the hobby
until
after they made the license easy enough; then they shoot off their mouths
with
their lookatmeimanextraclass callsigns and act like they own the hobby.

Maybe open up on the Maritime net frequency. They have no more right to
that
frequency than you do. And since CW is a superior mode, shouldn't you have
precedence anyhow? What will eventually happen is that Once SSB Ops find
out it's a brave new world without any border, they'll move down into your
backyard, and any idea who will win that little range war?

Your adolescent humour is as weak as your attempt at satire. By the way,
yes, CW IS a superior mode. That's why newbies like yourself are so
threatened
by it.

I think it's great to have vintage enthusiasts to have a watering hole. I
wouldn't think that comments like :
vintage enthusiasts might listen with
the hope of finding someone running something other than Kensues or
YaeCOMs.

I thought that was a pretty great comment.

Make it sound like you look at it as some sort of elite group, and
possibly not very friendly, except to those who are worthy.

Just sayin'

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

There are a lot of us who in fact do not feel the litter of
ham pups are worthy. They've (you've) done nothing to prove you earned
anything much
less belong to a fraternity of others who had to do much more to join.
Maybe some us us just want to talk to a genuine ham operator instead of
shallow transparent pretenders.

Quig

The apostrophe also indicates missing letters i.e. Amos 'n' Andy (Amos and
Andy), 'Tis (it is), F'rinstance (for instance).
KC's could be kilocyc'les although more proper would probably be k'c's
although stupid.

Quig

"Roger D Johnson" wrote in message
...
3599 kc's? The apostrophe indicates possession. Is that
intended to be plural? Kilocycles is already plural.
Rather like the lids that use 73s.

SX-25 wrote:

Jeezy Louisy...lighten up.

I started this whole thing just to suggest a calling frequency. The
thread is turning into
a moral indictment.

This is most likely the reason I find myself working on vintage gear a
lot more than operating it.

If you think that CW Ops have had spectrum taken away from them on 75/80
when they have and still have access to the *entire band* from bottom to
top, You might want to try operating some more, OM! 8^)

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Mike Coslo wrote:
SX-25 wrote:

Jeezy Louisy...lighten up.

I started this whole thing just to suggest a calling frequency. The
thread is turning into
a moral indictment.

This is most likely the reason I find myself working on vintage gear a
lot more than operating it.

If you think that CW Ops have had spectrum taken away from them on 75/80
when they have and still have access to the *entire band* from bottom to
top, You might want to try operating some more, OM! 8^)

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

This thread has really gone nutso. Shoot, you'd be hard pressed to make
a contest contact on 3599 on a contest weekend. I don't understand the
beef.

No 3599 xtal here but I'll certainly keep an ear out there even if
there's half a concensus for a good gathering spot.

-Bill WX4A/KP4

Scott Quigley wrote:

The band segments are gentlemens agreements. Be a gentleman. I find the
agreement to be helpful, not a bad thing at all.

Are these the same "gentlemen's agreements" we enjoy on contest weekends?
Try to operate and NOT be in the contest!

Ahh. One of the most amusing things about some Hams is that they are such
control freaks that they demand other Hams behave exactly the same way.
Some great unwashed said "Roger" on your repeater. Quick - send him and
the FCC a letter telling him to stay off of it. Don't like ragchewing ? -
"Get those kids off my lawn!"

Maybe some of us a sick of righteous snobbery from guys who didn't get into
the hobby
until
after they made the license easy enough; then they shoot off their mouths
with
their lookatmeimanextraclass callsigns and act like they own the hobby.

Maybe open up on the Maritime net frequency. They have no more right to
that
frequency than you do. And since CW is a superior mode, shouldn't you
have
precedence anyhow? What will eventually happen is that Once SSB Ops find
out it's a brave new world without any border, they'll move down into
your
backyard, and any idea who will win that little range war?

Your adolescent humour is as weak as your attempt at satire. By the way,
yes, CW IS a superior mode. That's why newbies like yourself are so
threatened
by it.

No it isn't a superior mode. I'm not a no coder, and I'm not a newbie.
And the very last thing I am threatened by is CW.

What I am is annoyed by Hams who think they are superior. Hams who think
that because they know a particular mode that they are superior.
And you don't know what satire is. I speak truth.

I think it's great to have vintage enthusiasts to have a watering hole. I
wouldn't think that comments like :
vintage enthusiasts might listen with
the hope of finding someone running something other than Kensues or
YaeCOMs.

I thought that was a pretty great comment.

Make it sound like you look at it as some sort of elite group, and
possibly not very friendly, except to those who are worthy.

Just sayin'

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

There are a lot of us who in fact do not feel the litter of
ham pups are worthy. They've (you've) done nothing to prove you earned
anything much less belong to a fraternity of others who had to do much more to join.
Maybe some us us just want to talk to a genuine ham operator instead of
shallow transparent pretenders.

You might want to check me out, Quig. I'm not who you think I am. I am
very supportive of CW. I don't use it much, but I do what I can to
support it, and can have an actual influence doing that support.

Now on to another opinion, but one grounded and likely to be very true.

I'm presuming that you place great stock in a person knowing OOK Morse.
Okay, that's a worthy goal. Another possibility is that you would like
the mode to continue, and to thrive. That is one possibility. There is
another darker possibility that I have seen in some Hams. Some older
Hams become quite cranky and quick to anger. They end up believing that
new Hams are inferior, and that there is no worth in them, and while
they claim that the old ways are superior, they have no desire to have
them continue, in fact, they believe that these old ways should die out
with them. Many even show signs of active mental and social sabotage.

The concept that the problem lies within these unwashed new guys and
gals is specious. The word lid came in to use long before the nickel
Hams and no-coders. The great 20 meter wars all happened between well
tested Hams who knew Morse code at a proficient speed. The Hams jamming
each other on 80 meters appear to also be folks around long enough to
had more to do to join the fraternity.

So yes, there are new hams who are lids. But yes indeed, the Morse code
test did not filter bad hams out in the good 'ol days. It isn't a good
argument. It's a test of mechanical skill, not of social worth.

On a little side note, neither did the tests themselves. The only real
difference that I can see are that the older tests had more questions
regarding tube technology. That's perfectly understandable. The
complaints about Dick Bash and eventually the question pools end up
being specious also. It is true that before the VEC system, that
question pools were not published. What does that mean?

Not much. I have an old Ameco Test guide from 1958. Some of the
questions in that test guide, which says that it's questions are
"similar" to what one might see on an F.C.C. exam are in fact verbatim
to what some question pool tests are now. Similar indeed!

So back to the idea of what people who love OOK Morse might do. Do you
love it, do you think it is a worthy thing? Then get out and show newbs
some of that Morse goodness. Let em know that Morse code, by virtue of
it's narrow bandwidth, is like running a linear amp compared to SSB
because of it's concentration of power in such a small area. Show them
the joys of simple transmitter construction with which they can talk
over the world.

Wanna kill it? Be petulant, be sure to let them know that until they
know Morse Code that they are second class citizens. Then even if they
learn it at 5wpm, make sure you let them know that 5wpm isn't even
really knowing Morse code, it's like a lookup sheet. Make sure to let
them know that they'll never be as worthy as the hams in the old days.

So anyhow, which are you? Do you care, or are you just enjoying your
discontent, and trying to spread some of it around.

Now, you might wonder, who is this guy who says he supports Morse CW,
but doesn't use it, and gets his hackles up when I complain about his
lack of worthiness? Why would anyone hold such an opinion?

Because I'm deaf. I read lips and have estimated 70 db tinnitus, as well
as I can't hear anything higher in frequency than 2 Kilohertz. What I
can hear is as much as 200 db down, but as high as just 30 db down in
some spots. Took me months to learn Morse to any degree. I can operate
CW if the signal is very strong, I have headphones on and it's turned up
*really* loud. Background noise or weak signals makes it just about
impossible. I can do SSB a lot easier, but still have to turn it up
fairly loud. My wife can hear my headphones while I'm operating while
she's in the living room over 50 feet away.

And before you talk about things like using lights, above 5wpm, they get
hard to read, and besides, did you know that a lot of Morse code
proficient Hams won't converse with you at that rate?

I suspect that if you had your way, this particular runt in that litter
of Ham pups would have been put to sleep pretty quickly, eh? Really,
it's no problem. I do enjoy Ham radio, though.

- Mike N3LI -

On Nov 18, 9:34*am, John wrote:
Great idea! *Only one comment that is not really worth mentioning but
nevertheless: *"Why restrict it to just one freq? What's wrong with a
band from 3560 to 3599?" *This would give less qrm on one freq. 73,
John K4ZYF *: ps: hallicrafters sx-117 & ht-44 here, solely cw.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN!!!
I AM SORRY THAT I EVER MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT THE BA SUBJECT!!!!!
MY INTENTIONS WERE FOR THE BEST FOR EVERYONE IN HAM RADIO.....
SOMEHOW, I WROTE THE WRONG WORDS OR SOMETHING ELSE AS IT
SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN MISUNDERSTOOD.
I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENT.
73, JOHN K4ZYF