开云体育

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 开云体育

Re: FT8 for U3?


 

Good point Jim, I agree 100%.


From: James Zelazny jr <wtfbsyt@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [QRPLabs] FT8 for U3?

Come to think of it...this is QRP Labs and about the U3S kit.Lets remember what QRP is ...
QRP operation is not 20,30.40.50+ watts like QSO modes are usually abused.When I say abused I mean 30+ watts on 20/30m or any other band that will work fine @ 1 watt.After all,what fun is it any other way? May as well make a phone call and get the same thrill of it.I know I can setup FT8 right now,pump in 30 watts and make QSO`s all day long on 20/30m...but I find that boring and too easy.I can do the same thing with PSK63...just add power :)
My point is simple.Using the "QRP" Labs for an FT8 beacon will never interfere with QSO`s since it is such low power.Those of us using the QRP kits have no real choice but to move where the receiving stations are.Again,JT9/JT65 and all the rest are abandoned soon as a new mode comes out.What good is running a QRP beacon if there are no receiving stations to spot it? All I have to do is look on PSKREPORTER and run through the modes to see who is actually there.So far,looking grim except for FT8.Sort of forces QRP enthusiasts to also migrate to where the most population is right?
Not sure about anyone else,but finding spots from a 20mw signal feels pretty good.
However...why not more operators utilized 2/6/10/70cm bands and drop 50 watts into that? Sounds much more challenging in my opinion and achievement.
MSK144 was doing really well for some time...but now looks it too has dimmed out.
Just my opinion and nothing more.
Jim


Join [email protected] to automatically receive all group messages.