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
|
