|
Horses are amazing creatures
Apparently, the horse is the only animal that can have a major part of its
body become detached and roam around unsupervised. Unfortunately these detached parts seem to be able to locate transmitters so they can shout their calls, call CQ, shout "up up", call each other "lids" (isn't there some saying concerning pots and kettles?), tune up amplifiers, etc, on a rare DX station's frequency. I suspect a lot of this may be from those who have already had the pleasure of working the DX and now feel the rest of us need it to be more challenging. It took me three days of trying to work T30M to finally know he had my call sign right because the QRM'ers and Megacycle cops always seemed to make their contribution when I thought I may be getting a call. Is the concept of split operation really that difficult to grasp for people who have presumably passed a relatively difficult exam in order to get their license?. This tirade is mainly inspired by today's contributions to the TO4E operation during the brief period I was finally able to *almost* copy them Spammers - reply freely and often to my e-mail address Everyone else - look me up on qrz.com Peace - Those rare moments in history when everyone is rearming.... |
Phil - N1KI wrote:
Is the concept of split operation really that difficult to grasp for people who have presumably passed a relatively difficult exam in order to get their license?. This tirade is mainly inspired by today's contributions to the TO4E operation during the brief period I was finally able to *almost* copy them ____________________ Don't be so quick to criticize people who call on the DX's frequency. There are a few programs which one could have running in the background that can inadvertently turn off the split function. I have had this happen to me a couple of times and been called a lid by the Kilocycle Kops. I'm not, but they're welcome to their opinion. Once this happens a time or two, most ops will figure it out, but until they do, put the blame where it belongs: Poorly written software. -- Bill W6WRT |
Phil - N1KI wrote:
Is the concept of split operation really that difficult to grasp for people who have presumably passed a relatively difficult exam in order to get their license?. This tirade is mainly inspired by today's contributions to the TO4E operation during the brief period I was finally able to *almost* copy them ____________________ Don't be so quick to criticize people who call on the DX's frequency. There are a few programs which one could have running in the background that can inadvertently turn off the split function. I have had this happen to me a couple of times and been called a lid by the Kilocycle Kops. I'm not, but they're welcome to their opinion. Once this happens a time or two, most ops will figure it out, but until they do, put the blame where it belongs: Poorly written software. -- Bill W6WRT |
Bill Turner wrote:
Don't be so quick to criticize people who call on the DX's frequency. There are a few programs which one could have running in the background that can inadvertently turn off the split function. I have had this happen to me a couple of times and been called a lid by the Kilocycle Kops. I'm not, but they're welcome to their opinion. Once this happens a time or two, most ops will figure it out, but until they do, put the blame where it belongs: Poorly written software. One might argue that if one's software is turning off the split mode, one needs to stop running that software, at least while calling split-frequency DX. If my rig radiates a T4 signal with spurs every 1KHz, should I keep calling the DX because it's the only rig I've got -- or should I be fixing my rig? Not that that justifies the screams of "UP LID" on top of the DX when one makes that error. The "UP" stations are causing far more QRM than the stations that inadvertently fail to engage split. One that really bothers me is when the DX is working split but not saying so. When each QSO ends with simply "TU" - no callsign, no indication they're listening up. Often 10, 15 QSOs or more before they ID and indicate they're listening up. It's not at all unusual for such a pileup to collect 5-6 good DXers calling the DX on his own frequency - and then a handful of "UP" stations. (inevitably, when the DX does ID and indicate he's listening up, you can't hear him because of the QRM from the "UP" stations!) Apparently if you find your own DX, you're a lid. (instead of letting the Cluster do it, so you can read the DX station's call and listening frequency on the Internet) -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com |
Bill Turner wrote:
Don't be so quick to criticize people who call on the DX's frequency. There are a few programs which one could have running in the background that can inadvertently turn off the split function. I have had this happen to me a couple of times and been called a lid by the Kilocycle Kops. I'm not, but they're welcome to their opinion. Once this happens a time or two, most ops will figure it out, but until they do, put the blame where it belongs: Poorly written software. One might argue that if one's software is turning off the split mode, one needs to stop running that software, at least while calling split-frequency DX. If my rig radiates a T4 signal with spurs every 1KHz, should I keep calling the DX because it's the only rig I've got -- or should I be fixing my rig? Not that that justifies the screams of "UP LID" on top of the DX when one makes that error. The "UP" stations are causing far more QRM than the stations that inadvertently fail to engage split. One that really bothers me is when the DX is working split but not saying so. When each QSO ends with simply "TU" - no callsign, no indication they're listening up. Often 10, 15 QSOs or more before they ID and indicate they're listening up. It's not at all unusual for such a pileup to collect 5-6 good DXers calling the DX on his own frequency - and then a handful of "UP" stations. (inevitably, when the DX does ID and indicate he's listening up, you can't hear him because of the QRM from the "UP" stations!) Apparently if you find your own DX, you're a lid. (instead of letting the Cluster do it, so you can read the DX station's call and listening frequency on the Internet) -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com |
Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
One might argue that if one's software is turning off the split mode, one needs to stop running that software, at least while calling split-frequency DX. ____________________ Agreed, but my point was that the above is non-obvious. Once you figure out what's happening, you can control it. As I said, the real "lid" in this case is poorly written software. -- Bill W6WRT |
Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
One might argue that if one's software is turning off the split mode, one needs to stop running that software, at least while calling split-frequency DX. ____________________ Agreed, but my point was that the above is non-obvious. Once you figure out what's happening, you can control it. As I said, the real "lid" in this case is poorly written software. -- Bill W6WRT |
Out of curiosity, and to help the rest of us avoid this problem, what software turns off the split function? Admittedly, with the TS2K, I usually use XIT instead of split, but I would like to know what software to avoid. Don't be so quick to criticize people who call on the DX's frequency. There are a few programs which one could have running in the background that can inadvertently turn off the split function. I have had this happen to me a couple of times and been called a lid by the Kilocycle Kops. I'm not, but they're welcome to their opinion. Once this happens a time or two, most ops will figure it out, but until they do, put the blame where it belongs: Poorly written software. Spammers - reply freely and often to my e-mail address Everyone else - look me up on qrz.com Peace - Those rare moments in history when everyone is rearming.... |
Out of curiosity, and to help the rest of us avoid this problem, what software turns off the split function? Admittedly, with the TS2K, I usually use XIT instead of split, but I would like to know what software to avoid. Don't be so quick to criticize people who call on the DX's frequency. There are a few programs which one could have running in the background that can inadvertently turn off the split function. I have had this happen to me a couple of times and been called a lid by the Kilocycle Kops. I'm not, but they're welcome to their opinion. Once this happens a time or two, most ops will figure it out, but until they do, put the blame where it belongs: Poorly written software. Spammers - reply freely and often to my e-mail address Everyone else - look me up on qrz.com Peace - Those rare moments in history when everyone is rearming.... |
Phil - N1KI wrote:
Out of curiosity, and to help the rest of us avoid this problem, what software turns off the split function? Admittedly, with the TS2K, I usually use XIT instead of split, but I would like to know what software to avoid. ____________________ LogWindows does it, and there was another which I used once but have since abandoned (don't remember which). The problem occurs when you do not have the program running, the radio is already in split mode, and you start the program. When the program starts, it turns off split and if you don't notice it... you're a *lid*. :-) -- Bill W6WRT |
Phil - N1KI wrote:
Out of curiosity, and to help the rest of us avoid this problem, what software turns off the split function? Admittedly, with the TS2K, I usually use XIT instead of split, but I would like to know what software to avoid. ____________________ LogWindows does it, and there was another which I used once but have since abandoned (don't remember which). The problem occurs when you do not have the program running, the radio is already in split mode, and you start the program. When the program starts, it turns off split and if you don't notice it... you're a *lid*. :-) -- Bill W6WRT |
Is the concept of split operation really that difficult to grasp
for people who have presumably passed a relatively difficult exam in order to get their license? There is no test of operating on the exams. It's like giving out driver's licenses based on a multiple-choice test only. It would be nice if the license exams included making a real QSO, copying some signals on the air, figuring out DX prefixes, and busting a CW pile-up. Dream on! Take a squint at the vanity HQ website sometimes and look at the vanity calls that even some Extra class hams have applied for - people ask for their names, they ask for A4, A5 prefixes, all sorts of crazy stuff. There's an Extra class person asking for A5NM, someone asked for an RM7 prefix, someone applied for SARK9S, others wants DA5246, DVRDWN, SARLAB and so on. It's no wonder that when such ops get on HF and start to try to work DX, they are completely lost. I suppose many (some) of them figure it out eventually, but the exams could include some very basic stuff like this, esp. the ones for license classes that allow HF access. Oh well, Derek aa5bt (perhaps I should apply for A5BT, it's shorter...) |
Is the concept of split operation really that difficult to grasp
for people who have presumably passed a relatively difficult exam in order to get their license? There is no test of operating on the exams. It's like giving out driver's licenses based on a multiple-choice test only. It would be nice if the license exams included making a real QSO, copying some signals on the air, figuring out DX prefixes, and busting a CW pile-up. Dream on! Take a squint at the vanity HQ website sometimes and look at the vanity calls that even some Extra class hams have applied for - people ask for their names, they ask for A4, A5 prefixes, all sorts of crazy stuff. There's an Extra class person asking for A5NM, someone asked for an RM7 prefix, someone applied for SARK9S, others wants DA5246, DVRDWN, SARLAB and so on. It's no wonder that when such ops get on HF and start to try to work DX, they are completely lost. I suppose many (some) of them figure it out eventually, but the exams could include some very basic stuff like this, esp. the ones for license classes that allow HF access. Oh well, Derek aa5bt (perhaps I should apply for A5BT, it's shorter...) |
Derek, you have done an excellent job of enhancing the point I was trying to
make. It seems that since licensing has become a matter of downloading or buying a copy of the question pool and memorizing the answers, that developing an understanding of the underlying principles and concepts has suffered. Unfortunately, courtesy and pride in operating skills has also suffered. Stupidity on a local level is annoying, but HF propagation makes it a world-wide problem. In article , (Derek Wills) wrote: Is the concept of split operation really that difficult to grasp for people who have presumably passed a relatively difficult exam in order to get their license? There is no test of operating on the exams. It's like giving out driver's licenses based on a multiple-choice test only. It would be nice if the license exams included making a real QSO, copying some signals on the air, figuring out DX prefixes, and busting a CW pile-up. Dream on! Take a squint at the vanity HQ website sometimes and look at the vanity calls that even some Extra class hams have applied for - people ask for their names, they ask for A4, A5 prefixes, all sorts of crazy stuff. There's an Extra class person asking for A5NM, someone asked for an RM7 prefix, someone applied for SARK9S, others wants DA5246, DVRDWN, SARLAB and so on. It's no wonder that when such ops get on HF and start to try to work DX, they are completely lost. I suppose many (some) of them figure it out eventually, but the exams could include some very basic stuff like this, esp. the ones for license classes that allow HF access. Oh well, Derek aa5bt (perhaps I should apply for A5BT, it's shorter...) Spammers - reply freely and often to my e-mail address Everyone else - look me up on qrz.com Peace - Those rare moments in history when everyone is rearming.... |
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:36:25 -0800, Bill Turner
wrote: Agreed, but my point was that the above is non-obvious. Once you figure out what's happening, you can control it. As I said, the real "lid" in this case is poorly written software. -- Bill W6WRT I guess we can let you slide on the software. If you're blind and can't read the frequency on the VFO...... 73, Jim KH2D |
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:36:25 -0800, Bill Turner
wrote: Agreed, but my point was that the above is non-obvious. Once you figure out what's happening, you can control it. As I said, the real "lid" in this case is poorly written software. -- Bill W6WRT I guess we can let you slide on the software. If you're blind and can't read the frequency on the VFO...... 73, Jim KH2D |
wrote in message
.. . On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:36:25 -0800, Bill Turner wrote: Agreed, but my point was that the above is non-obvious. Once you figure out what's happening, you can control it. As I said, the real "lid" in this case is poorly written software. -- Bill W6WRT I guess we can let you slide on the software. If you're blind and can't read the frequency on the VFO...... I wonder who the FCC would cite as the operator in charge of the transmitter if the software "caused" out-of-band operation... the licensed operator of the transmitter, or the software that the licensee claimed was in charge of his transmitter ? ;) 73, Jerry -- Jerry Bransford To email, remove 'me' from my email address KC6TAY/AG, PP-ASEL See the Geezer Jeep at http://members.cox.net/jerrypb/ |
wrote in message
.. . On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:36:25 -0800, Bill Turner wrote: Agreed, but my point was that the above is non-obvious. Once you figure out what's happening, you can control it. As I said, the real "lid" in this case is poorly written software. -- Bill W6WRT I guess we can let you slide on the software. If you're blind and can't read the frequency on the VFO...... I wonder who the FCC would cite as the operator in charge of the transmitter if the software "caused" out-of-band operation... the licensed operator of the transmitter, or the software that the licensee claimed was in charge of his transmitter ? ;) 73, Jerry -- Jerry Bransford To email, remove 'me' from my email address KC6TAY/AG, PP-ASEL See the Geezer Jeep at http://members.cox.net/jerrypb/ |
Now, now, guys. You know nothing is ever *their* fault. And people have been
blaming their screw-ups on computers for over thirty years now. Just a passing thought, I wonder if these people go around bragging about how their computer worked a rare DX? It seems only fair..... In article sysFb.23793$gN.11372@fed1read05, "Jerry Bransford" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:36:25 -0800, Bill Turner wrote: Agreed, but my point was that the above is non-obvious. Once you figure out what's happening, you can control it. As I said, the real "lid" in this case is poorly written software. -- Bill W6WRT I guess we can let you slide on the software. If you're blind and can't read the frequency on the VFO...... I wonder who the FCC would cite as the operator in charge of the transmitter if the software "caused" out-of-band operation... the licensed operator of the transmitter, or the software that the licensee claimed was in charge of his transmitter ? ;) 73, Jerry Spammers - reply freely and often to my e-mail address Everyone else - look me up on qrz.com Peace - Those rare moments in history when everyone is rearming.... |
Now, now, guys. You know nothing is ever *their* fault. And people have been
blaming their screw-ups on computers for over thirty years now. Just a passing thought, I wonder if these people go around bragging about how their computer worked a rare DX? It seems only fair..... In article sysFb.23793$gN.11372@fed1read05, "Jerry Bransford" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:36:25 -0800, Bill Turner wrote: Agreed, but my point was that the above is non-obvious. Once you figure out what's happening, you can control it. As I said, the real "lid" in this case is poorly written software. -- Bill W6WRT I guess we can let you slide on the software. If you're blind and can't read the frequency on the VFO...... I wonder who the FCC would cite as the operator in charge of the transmitter if the software "caused" out-of-band operation... the licensed operator of the transmitter, or the software that the licensee claimed was in charge of his transmitter ? ;) 73, Jerry Spammers - reply freely and often to my e-mail address Everyone else - look me up on qrz.com Peace - Those rare moments in history when everyone is rearming.... |
Tucked into a stone hedge is a valid sketch molded from fruits and Żyrandole
. Its confederation is a corncob; its sexuality is all-embracing, representing, as Ms. Fry shows, turning it severely, it is not fundamentally numb with youngster, but a hermaphrodite. To some limit fruit, involvement veggie, pansexual: the made-up possibilities are staggering, while other corncob creatures would purposes be the most lampy wiszące dates. |
Tucked into a stone hedge is a unequivocal sketch molded from fruits and lampy wiszące
. Its body is a corncob; its sexuality is all-embracing, on the relief of, as Ms. Fry shows, turning it when all is said, it is not basically the dough, but a hermaphrodite. Overturn one more time fruit, involvement veggie, pansexual: the mythical possibilities are staggering, conceding that other corncob creatures would purposes be the most nowoczesne oświetlenie dates. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com