Dear Stefan,
what most of us try on LF and MF (137kHz / 500kHz) is to optimize the
"efficiency" of their station, within the limits they have.
Some are lucky and have plenty of place to put up huge antennas.
Some build (or buy) high-power PA's.
Some use try new modes.
I do not see any reason who one of these options would be "more noble"
than the other.
Just one (fictive) thought:
Two radioamateurs attemt to get the best out of their station.
The first buys a big antenna, a top class tranceiver and a big PA. He
makes his QSO's in CW, probably using a commercial electronic keyer
and using the build-in DSP filter of his top class tranceiver.
The second one has a homebrew antenna, a modest tranceiver (he hasn't
the Euro's to buy a top class one) but tries to get the best out of it
by experimenting with new modes, maybe even writing the appropriate
software.
Who of this two is the true "amateur" ?
For some reason anything to improve the signal seems to be acceptable
except the visible aid of computers:
- buy or build big antennas (and have the property to place them): OK
- buy or build big PA's: OK
- try new modes using "visible" aid of a computer: no way
73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T
Quoting Stefan Schäfer <[email protected]>:
Dear LF,
WSPR offers new dx records for all LF stations, sure. With QRSS/DFCW
it is the same, compared to CW. Perhaps some stns will successfully
do TA QSOs nw in wspr, congrats!
What will happen if in 2 years the next software will be available
with even much better error correction and so on? What, if this
software is so good that a QSO to VK will be possible?
I mean, does such a software not relativate the value or the
personal meaning of a QSO? If you reach 5000km with a almost perfect
software that does record and publish everything automatically, is
the QSO then done by you due to your knowledge and your motivation
to built up a good station and the time you (and the QSO partner)
spent to get that contact? Or is it done by the software? Is the
feeling about a confirmed two way contact the same in than in CW?
If anyone can run a beacon with 10W TX power into a dipole for 40m
and WSPR accumulates all contacts over time, then it is just a
question of time to get a time/moment of optimal propagation on lf
and so you just have to look if the ODX increased and if not, just
wait some days longer...
Is that the same feeling than after a difficult but successful CW
contact? Really?
If we tend to say "WSPR is 5dB better than QRSS, so why are we still
doing QRSS or even CW???", then we neglect this difference that
appears to some of us.
For me, personally, WSPR seems to be interesting but not really a
choice since a amateur radio QSO has something to do with a signal
that has to be catched out of a noise by a human, not by a computer.
I want to listen (or at least watch) to a signal that is followed
by a human to the same time and want to get a personal information
(not such as 599tu). Anything else is just in the region of a test
that gets boring if the ODX does not increase any more and fast
enough. And all the work will be relativated when the next, of
course better, version comes out...
In my opinion, the more we let the pc do the work, the more we are
apart to the human/ each other and the faster it gets boring.
Stefan/DK7FC
|
