From: WarmSpgs@aol.com
Message-ID: <0.31aeddf7.259189ad@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 20:55:57 EST
Subject: Re: LF: RE -QRSS MSGS
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

In a message dated 99-12-21 14:37:14 EST, you write:

<< If you are limited to 1 watt dc input it  would be interested to know what 
your
 expectations are of crossing the Atlantic to the UK on qrss. I rate your 
chances
 as NIL >>

     Until we have a full-fledged amateur allocation here, with an ERP limit 
rather than our DC input and antenna length restrictions, I agree 
wholeheartedly!
    Even then, credible predictions for received signal stength indicate it 
will be desirable to use extremely narrowband (consequently, slow) techniques 
with the best available antenna systems.  The AMRAD group, working under 
terms of an experimental license that approximates terms of an actual ham 
allocation, are the only US amateurs who stand even a remote chance of 
crossing the Atlantic in the foreseeable future; but given the most 
optimistic QRN and QRM levels, even they will need to use one or more 
bandwidth reduction or signal averaging techniques, with a resulting 
reduction in communications speed.
     I do not see evidence that "Qrss is discouraging experimenters from 
improving their antennas, receivers and associated equipment to make a normal 
aural qso," as expressed in the response to Geri.  Based on messages posted 
to this list, it appears normal speed Morse is alive and well.  In addition, 
many of the same experimenters developing QRSS techniques are themselves 
quite successful with conventional aural QSOs.
     The question may be (to borrow words attributed to that great Dane, 
Hamlet) whether tis nobler of mind to limit oneself to copying by ear at 
normal speeds, and bear the burden of communicating over difficult paths on a 
sporadic basis; or to take up arms such as QRSS or coherent techniques, and 
by communicating slowly, do it more consistently.
     Philosophically, if communication speed were the basis for saying one 
mode is more worthwhile than another, high-speed teleprinters would be the 
order of the day.  If live human sending and aural copy are added to the 
criteria, then voice modes are superior to Morse.  I can speak faster than 
the best CW operator alive, and if allowed enough power, I can reach just as 
far.  But I don't think anyone would succeed selling that argument to a 
die-hard code enthusiast, logically consistent though it may be.
     Removing both philosophical questions and personal taste from the 
equation, I don't think QRSS is any more or less meritorious than aural CW.  
It's simply different, and will find its place in the arsenal of 
well-equipped experimenters.

73,
John  KD4IDY