Message-ID: <550373B6.9000404@gmx.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 00:33:10 +0100
From: Tobias DG3LV <DG3LV@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <ud3m05bwueiaqs5jiiyoci3d.1394044265947@email.android.com> <53179301.8080002@broadpark.no> <53187B41.3020201@gmx.net> <53188931.8020805@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <55021CD4.2040805@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <55021CD4.2040805@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: LF: Activity etc. - DG3LV discussion -One year later
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

Hi Stefan !
Hi Rik, Steinar, Wolf, MF !

> WSQ ... a real alternative to *CW*
An Alternative ? Yes, definitely! A Replacement for CW ? Never meant to be !

The DX capabilities of WSQ are very good, down to -25dB for excellent 
reading, down to -32dB at QSB. There are not many QSO-modes that work on 
such low SNR-levels. So this is a QSO(!)-mode for really weak signals, 
(like my one).

Since Wolf's Version of WSQ (Thank you !) I have been QRV in this mode 
and -by the time- did a nice bunch of QSOs in this mode. ODX will be 
IW4DXW at 1004 km. The total number of my QSOs is unknown, it were more 
than just a dozen.

>... as a _permanent used_ QSO data mode
Just recently IW4DXW, IZ7SLZ and IZ7PDX invited to an "evening of WSQ" 
and made some QSOs. Over the year there were stations calling CQ (and 
had QSOs) in WSQ. It has NOT vanished, but proved true to be a valuable 
part in the spectrum of digital modes on MF.

> It was also the discussion if it/there will be a real alternative to *CW*.
That is not my point of view! Such discussions make me yawn. Nobody 
should be afraid at the upcoming of a new mode. CW is NOT challenged by 
WSQ, for what's sake it should do ?

Nobody seriously wants to "kill" CW, this is just the (unfounded, but 
repeatedly repeated) fear (phobia?) of some CW-only operators. There is 
absolutely no cause for another flame-war "CW vs. the rest". Please 
don't try. It's just boring.

> ... a _LOT of CW activity_!
It is nice to see that there are more and more stations active in On/Off 
keying in any mode, hand-made or machine-generated. People should do the 
modes they like and not follow a "must-do" (or "must-not-do"). Since the 
establishing of 630m as a standard band for hams in DL the activity has 
risen from year to year, there are more (and more powerful) stations on 
the band recently, which is showing the acceptance and technical 
achievement at this band after just 2 1/2 years. A good proof for 
amateur radio as an experimental service.

> What is the preferred mode?
Hmmmm, a look at WSPRNET.ORG shows a lot of stations on MF in a 10 
minute-interval, (at any time of the day).

My alternative QSO-mode on MF was JT9, 34 logged QSOs with 14 calls from 
6 DXCC-countries (+ DL). ODX will be IW4DXW in JT9 as well. Maybe I can 
claim a first-ever JT9 QSO DL-ON and DL-LA on MF.

So, after one year of experience with Wolf's Version of WSQ I am 
satisfied with this mode and want to thank all who participated in the 
experiments and helped to evolve this mode.

73 de dg3lv Tobias

Am 13.03.2015 um 00:10 schrieb DK7FC:
> Hello Tobias, LF,
>
> Recently my smartphone reminded me on an entry i made last year. We
> discussed about the new WSQ mode and if it will be established as a
> _permanent used_ QSO data mode. It was also the discussion if it/there
> will be a real alternative to *CW*. I said i'll come back to you in a
> year to see what happened. Now this time is over.
> So, what do we see? Today is a quiet normal day, no special condx, no
> special day (weekend or so), no special stations on the band (actually
> we are all special :-) ) or activity announced but there was a _LOT of
> CW activity_! (LOT is relative of course :-) ) See the attached image
> from my MF grabber giving an overview of the MF CW range this evening
> (first half of the evening).
>
> Now, take a look at http://www.dxsummit.fi/#/?include=472kHz What do you
> see? What is the preferred mode?
>
> I think the situation is clear now. Actually it has been clear a year
> ago as well ;-)
>
> 73, Stefan
>
>
> Am 06.03.2014 15:41, schrieb Stefan Schäfer:
>>
>> Am 06.03.2014 14:42, schrieb Tobias DG3LV:
>>> The lack of QSO-activity of any mode is a social "problem" in my view.
>> Agreed. And that's why contests are so popular on the HF bands.
>> Actually many people don't know what to talk except "599 tu". Same in
>> SSB of course. That is the actual problem. And as long as this problem
>> exists, every QSO mode has to die after some time. Honestly, since the
>> last few years there have been several new (and of course better and
>> better and really better (like washing agent :-) )) QSO modes or non
>> QSO modes. They come and go. They are interesting for some time until
>> they become boring. Then the next one has to come. And the intervall
>> becomes shorter and shorter.
>>
>> But somehow, there is that mode: CW. Take a look at
>> http://www.dxsummit.fi/CustomFilter.aspx?customCount=50&customRange=472 and
>> you will see that there is permanent CW activity, all around the year.
>> Do you remember, it is more than 10 years ago that a CW exam was not
>> part of the HF licence in Germany. And many of the class2 amateurs
>> (VHF/UHF licences) gibed "Hahaha, now CW will die out soon". But
>> somehow it does not, even without a new software update :-)
>>
>> And that is the difference: In digimodes you press e.g. F3 to start
>> your call. In CW you do it by the "language" itselfe, which is fun for
>> itselfe! Thus, calling CQ for hours is possible without becoming
>> boring, just because it is music what you're listeng to! A non-CW man
>> never understood what that means to talk with your fingers. You can
>> sit at home, alone, and play your guitar and be happy, without someone
>> responding or applouding :-)
>>
>>
>>> As the number of joining hams in a mode usually is limited, there are
>>> always "the same suspects" who can talk to each other or even can
>>> hear each other.
>> Which is not the problem. You usually have only even one XYL, evening
>> by evening. Often you can hear her but sometimes you can't understand
>> her :-) Always the same suspect.
>>
>>> After some time its getting boring and unpolite to have a QSO several
>>> times a day without any "news" to tell.
>> Same with some XYLs after some years? :-)
>>
>>> So the number of QSOs is decreasing by the time, and people start to
>>> run endless CQ-loops to gain a QSO by force. Some are not answering
>>> another ham calling CQ but starting a CQ of their own instead. The
>>> subbands fill up with "beacons" by that.
>> ...but there are several OMs who are happy to receive a signal to
>> copy! I've got several SWL reports, even by mail (not e-mail), of OMs
>> who are obviously fascinated by these "beacons" and ask for a QSL.
>> EA3LA, that's a good example. He took a video and uploaded it to
>> youtube. So obviously he must be fascinated, NOT bored by that
>> "beacon"! BTW if my power would be 20 dB down, he would hear NIL and
>> maybe says "the band is dead" and tell it to his friends in the local
>> club.
>> And, calling CQ is not a beacon at all, as long as someone is
>> listening between the calls and is ready to answer an audible signal.
>>
>>> There has to be a critical mass of people to keep a mode running.
>> Oh yes, same for CW, as we can see on LF :-(
>>
>>> People have to know about any new mode, so a high level of publicity
>>> is mandatory to acheive that critical mass.
>> But in digimodes, where the above described effect (fascination of
>> listening to CW) is not present, that critical mass can never be hold!
>> Because, as you say, it's all the time the same if you don't know what
>> to tell. So, after a few QSOs, newcomers tend to become bored.
>>
>>> It will take a time to establish a new mode for everyday use. There
>>> is a good chance that WSQ will become an effective keyboard to
>>> keyboard mode that is used frequently. Just a fortnight ago we first
>>> heard about it by you, its definitely too early to dismiss it.
>> Then let us wait another year and have a conclusion then :-) Maybe i
>> am wrong, which would be good :-)
>>
>> 73, Stefan/DK7FC
>>