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