Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: RE -QRSS MSGS

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: RE -QRSS MSGS
From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 20:55:57 EST
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: <[email protected]>
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


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>