"Mark Pinkerman" wrote:

While I agree with your assertion regarding
"some frequency" will certainly be available for
HF voice communications. As a long time CW
operator I must respectfully question your
statement that "(CW doesn't get through that
much better)." as I can think of literally thousands
of times when the band in question was to 'weak'
for SSB, but good ole faithful CW was clicking
away on the band. Just some food for thought.


I don't disagree, Mark. I acknowledged that CW gets through better. But I
was saying that if HF was somehow screwed up enough to prevent voice on
"ANY" frequency (very unlikely, but that was the argument made), CW probably
wouldn't get through either. In that regard, CW is better, but it's not
"THAT" much better.

Of course, since the very premise described is highly unlikely, the whole
thing is a fairly silly argument.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Jeezy petes! How long has this guy been around? A week? Two weeks? Anyone
who has been fooling around with shortwave propagation for any amount of
time can cite oodles and oodles of times when CW made it through and voice
did not.
Me thinks this is more an editorial by a guy who either hates the code or
never could cut it.

Smokey
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
Ryan wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
What are you going to use when HF propagation
is too weak to support voice???

1. Change frequency. (snip)

If HF isn't supporting voice propagation, to what
frequency would you suggest changing? (snip)

(snip) But if propagation is poor, voice may not be
intelligible yet CW will often come through quite
clearly under those conditions.


Nonsense, Dee. I've never, ever, saw HF messed up enough not to support
voice on at least some frequency. Regardless, if HF was truly somehow
messed
up that badly (enough not to support voice on any frequency), CW probably
wouldn't get through either (CW doesn't get through that much better).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:13:21 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote:

"Mark Keith" wrote:
Jeff Renkin wrote:

The International Maritime Organization (snip)

FOR COMMERCIAL VESSELS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So that answer would be, the Global Maritime
Distress and Safety System.

Right...A guy on a 20 ft sailboat is going to buy a
system that costs more than his boat...Good
grief....Get a grip. (snip)


In much of the world, it isn't an option, and at this point, a GMDSS
beacon without GPS, but with auto deployment is about 600USD.

Forr about $950 you get one with a GPS built in.

That my frined, is very cheap life insurance.

You trip off a GPS equipped GMDSS, and within 5 minutes, half the
world will know it has gone off. In addition because GMDSS beacons
have ID's, they will know who/what you are as well, and on the GPS
equipped versions, will know where you are +/- about 30 meters.

By contrast, EPIRB 121.5Mhz systems may take several hours to come
with a good fix on your location, and tell the authorities nothing
about the unit that has gone off.

Given the choice between a 121.5Mhz EPIRB and a 406Mhz GMDSS, I'll
take the GMDSS anytime and everytime.

"Smokey" wrote:
Jeezy petes! How long has this guy been
around? (snip)


Long enough to know how to read, Smokey. The issue isn't whether CW gets
through better - the issue is whether HF would ever be messed up to the
point of not supporting voice on ANY frequency and whether CW would get
through if HF was ever indeed messed up THAT much. This was the premise
offered by the person I replied to and that premise alone is what I replied
to.


Me thinks this is more an editorial by a guy
who either hates the code or never could
cut it.


And I think you're trying to use this nonsense to distract from what was
actually said. CW does get through better than voice, but there is no reason
to overstate that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/