On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:26:47 -0800, "Caveat Lector"
wrote:

[snip]

| Indeed, while I hate to join the "I hate packet" bandwagon there really
| does seem to be a correlation between continuous calling and the explosive
| growth of spotting nets.
|
|The spotting nets give a lot of info that was not available in the old
|days -- working country X only, working district X only, Up x to x freq,
|wrked em at XXX, QSX X , QSY to Band X, DX station is QRT, etc.
|
|So for the intelligent DXer this should bring more order out of chaos. But
|alas it seems to have helped very little -- so perhaps it is not the
|cluster hounds who are the problem as evidenced with the unbelievable "Who's
|the Dx" queries. Obviously these guys aren't looking at the cluster. Nor is
|the lid who is calling on the DX frequency -- one look at the packet cluster
|would reveal that --provided the lid knows what "he is working split" means.

I will admit to occasionally looking at worldwide Internet spots on
the computer in a room away from the ham shack. I do this mainly to
get a feel for what the propagation is around the globe. But I don't
have a filtered packet cluster tuning my radio for me or have voice
announcements calling me away from other things to work DX.

I don't have a problem with those who want to operate this way, I just
choose not to. That said, I do believe that clusters have caused a
certain sloppiness to creep into current DX practice.

For example, I have on occasion been the first to work some DX station
and have had him ask me to spot him. I have to decline, since I
wouldn't know how to do it if I wanted to. Why the guy can't just
keep calling CQ until he makes his own pileup escapes me.

But when he gets spotted and the pile is in place, he figures he
doesn't have to identify anymore, so guys like me that tune across the
pileup wonder who in the hell he is. I know better than to ask, but
some don't, hence the "Who's the DX?" questions. The assumption that
*everyone* is connected to a cluster is ridiculous. When did it
become a requirement that to work DX you had to have a packet cluster
connection?

If on occasion, the DX would say, this is P5A, listening up 5 for W7s
only, there would be a lot less chaos.

The original poster sed that the DX packet Clusters were a contributing
cause of the mess on the bands.

I replied au contraire as it gives lots of info that should reduce the
chaos.

What the clusters have done is make DX activity known world wide in a very
short period of time. Instant DX huh ?
Many perceive this as a mess where in fact without the clusters, the pileup
would probably build eventually to the same "mess"
So the pileups are bigger quicker. That is a fact of DXing today and it
ain't gonna change -- get over it and use your skills to get thru the
pileup.

In what way has the clusters caused sloppiness?
Good grief -- it gives the freq, split, callsign, QSL mgr, District or
country currently being worked, QSX spots, etc.
I suspect many who would ask "Who's the DX" "Who's the manager" "Where is
he/she listening"; no longer do that as it is readily available on the
clusters VHF or telnet.

Thus anyone using the cluster shouldn't have to ask these questions on top
of the DX freq.

No not all use the clusters, of course. No one sed they did or that it was a
requirement.

Whether one should use the clusters or whether they should even exist is an
entirely different matter.
Many will say they have 3 jobs, 8 kids and a demanding wife and don't have
the time to tune for 8 hours.
So be it.
I like to tune and find them myself but I have the time and inclination to
do that.
Personally I prefer the old days when one had to tune tune tune to find DX,
but that ain't the way it is any more.

As for "If on occasion, the DX would say, this is P5A, listening up 5 for
W7s
only, there would be a lot less chaos."
That's the DX station's fault not the callers or the cluster -- in fact the
cluster is quite useful when the DX is sloppy.

As for the DX asking for a cluster post -- of course he/she wants the
maximum number of contacts -- seems like a reasonable request to me. Are you
going to help them do that or decline ?

Bottom line DX Packet Clusters are here to stay -- like em or not.

--
CV - I doubt, therefore I might be !






"Wes Stewart" *n7ws*@ yahoo.com wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:26:47 -0800, "Caveat Lector"
wrote:

[snip]

| Indeed, while I hate to join the "I hate packet" bandwagon there really
| does seem to be a correlation between continuous calling and the
explosive
| growth of spotting nets.
|
|The spotting nets give a lot of info that was not available in the old
|days -- working country X only, working district X only, Up x to x freq,
|wrked em at XXX, QSX X , QSY to Band X, DX station is QRT, etc.
|
|So for the intelligent DXer this should bring more order out of chaos.
But
|alas it seems to have helped very little -- so perhaps it is not the
|cluster hounds who are the problem as evidenced with the unbelievable
"Who's
|the Dx" queries. Obviously these guys aren't looking at the cluster. Nor
is
|the lid who is calling on the DX frequency -- one look at the packet
cluster
|would reveal that --provided the lid knows what "he is working split"
means.

I will admit to occasionally looking at worldwide Internet spots on
the computer in a room away from the ham shack. I do this mainly to
get a feel for what the propagation is around the globe. But I don't
have a filtered packet cluster tuning my radio for me or have voice
announcements calling me away from other things to work DX.

I don't have a problem with those who want to operate this way, I just
choose not to. That said, I do believe that clusters have caused a
certain sloppiness to creep into current DX practice.

For example, I have on occasion been the first to work some DX station
and have had him ask me to spot him. I have to decline, since I
wouldn't know how to do it if I wanted to. Why the guy can't just
keep calling CQ until he makes his own pileup escapes me.

But when he gets spotted and the pile is in place, he figures he
doesn't have to identify anymore, so guys like me that tune across the
pileup wonder who in the hell he is. I know better than to ask, but
some don't, hence the "Who's the DX?" questions. The assumption that
*everyone* is connected to a cluster is ridiculous. When did it
become a requirement that to work DX you had to have a packet cluster
connection?

If on occasion, the DX would say, this is P5A, listening up 5 for W7s
only, there would be a lot less chaos.

"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message
...
Caveat Lector wrote:
There is this to understand

All of the below is old hat and has been going on for a long time -- 30
years that I know of.
No worse now as compared to then.

I would disagree with that assessment.

There are a lot of things in ham radio that aren't worse than they were 30
years ago. But this isn't one of them.

I got my license in 1973 and I clearly remember a day when if you would
listen, you could almost always find the guy the DX was working. Yeah,
there were plenty of people who didn't know that - who would just pick a
transmit frequency at random & just call there - but they didn't call
continuously *every time* the DX stopped transmitting.

And WHILE the DX is transmitting ...

Indeed, while I hate to join the "I hate packet" bandwagon there really
does seem to be a correlation between continuous calling and the explosive
growth of spotting nets.

Used to use things like the telephone and of course 10M AM.
The local group tended to monitor 28.7.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli

"Hank Oredson" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message
...
Caveat Lector wrote:
There is this to understand

All of the below is old hat and has been going on for a long time -- 30
years that I know of.
No worse now as compared to then.

I would disagree with that assessment.

There are a lot of things in ham radio that aren't worse than they were
30 years ago. But this isn't one of them.

I got my license in 1973 and I clearly remember a day when if you would
listen, you could almost always find the guy the DX was working. Yeah,
there were plenty of people who didn't know that - who would just pick a
transmit frequency at random & just call there - but they didn't call
continuously *every time* the DX stopped transmitting.

And WHILE the DX is transmitting ...

Indeed, while I hate to join the "I hate packet" bandwagon there really
does seem to be a correlation between continuous calling and the
explosive growth of spotting nets.

Used to use things like the telephone and of course 10M AM.
The local group tended to monitor 28.7.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli


And in the past, many DX clubs set up DX spotting repeaters on 2M -- some
with 200 members
Also 2M simplex
And prior to that folks gave a one ringer landline call to their DX buddies
as u sed.
An before the clusters, avid DXers subscribed to DX newsletters to "spot"
the DX
Ala The West Coast DX Bulletin by Hugh Cassidy WA6AUD
Or now a days The Daily DX.

Any difference between these and today's Packet Cluster other than wide
distribution ?????

"Caveat Lector" wrote in message
news:aLk0e.112$k57.19@fed1read07...





"Hank Oredson" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message
...
Caveat Lector wrote:
There is this to understand

All of the below is old hat and has been going on for a long time -- 30
years that I know of.
No worse now as compared to then.

I would disagree with that assessment.

There are a lot of things in ham radio that aren't worse than they were
30 years ago. But this isn't one of them.

I got my license in 1973 and I clearly remember a day when if you would
listen, you could almost always find the guy the DX was working. Yeah,
there were plenty of people who didn't know that - who would just pick a
transmit frequency at random & just call there - but they didn't call
continuously *every time* the DX stopped transmitting.

And WHILE the DX is transmitting ...

Indeed, while I hate to join the "I hate packet" bandwagon there really
does seem to be a correlation between continuous calling and the
explosive growth of spotting nets.

Used to use things like the telephone and of course 10M AM.
The local group tended to monitor 28.7.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli


And in the past, many DX clubs set up DX spotting repeaters on 2M -- some
with 200 members

Yes, that was much later, once there were repeaters :-)
There were also various DX nets on HF.
For VHF DXing there were the 75M and 10M coordination freqs.

Also 2M simplex
And prior to that folks gave a one ringer landline call to their DX
buddies as u sed.
An before the clusters, avid DXers subscribed to DX newsletters to "spot"
the DX

Used to get several of them ...

Ala The West Coast DX Bulletin by Hugh Cassidy WA6AUD
Or now a days The Daily DX.

Any difference between these and today's Packet Cluster other than wide
distribution ?????

DX cluster is just another tool.

There is also much better propagation information available now.
Used to use the charts in QST, but they were just estimates and
were, on average, two weeks out of date. Now there is good
realtime data available. The good news is that some folks will
look at that data and decide some particular band is dead. That
gives an edge to those of us who tune it anyway ... and find that
unexpected 5 minute opening to very rare Eastern Lower Slabovia.

I find, however, that my best luck is with some rare station that has just
come on air. I'll post it to the cluster right after I've worked it :-)

But heck, I'm not a serious DXer ...

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli

Caveat Lector wrote:
The original poster sed that the DX packet Clusters were a contributing
cause of the mess on the bands.

I replied au contraire as it gives lots of info that should reduce the
chaos.

I think it does both.

I use it largely for the same thing Wes does: to help learn what
propagation is like; to help learn what DX is on; and to help learn the
operating habits of interesting DX stations.

And I certainly don't begrudge those who use packet to find where a
specific station is operating at a specific time and work them. There's
nothing wrong with that.

Packet might indeed contribute to some degree to getting callers off the
DX's frequency, people who might not have heard the DX say he's
listening up. (it is disturbing how often this is the DX's fault - how
often the DX is listening up but isn't saying so.) It might also inform
operators the DX is working by districts, or only working EU, or ???

Though really, packet shouldn't be necessary to these ends -- the DX
should be frequently indicating what they're doing, and the DX chasers
shouldn't be transmitting unless they're copying the DX well enough to
know what the DX is saying.

In what way has the clusters caused sloppiness?

In that people who can't hear/copy the DX can become aware of the DX's
presence.

In the days before spotting systems, I couldn't know FT5XO was on 21024
unless I was listening to 21024 and could copy the DX station
transmitting there. I wouldn't be calling FT5XO unless I could *hear*
FT5XO. Today, I look at DX Summit and I immediately know where the FT5
is.

===

I don't believe clusters will go away. I don't believe they *should* go
away. I don't believe there's anything wrong with the clusters
themselves or the way they're programmed.

I think the problem lies with a significant number of *users* who are
unable to operate in a sensible manner.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

Caveat Lector wrote:
And in the past, many DX clubs set up DX spotting repeaters on 2M -- some
with 200 members
Also 2M simplex
And prior to that folks gave a one ringer landline call to their DX buddies
as u sed.
An before the clusters, avid DXers subscribed to DX newsletters to "spot"
the DX
Ala The West Coast DX Bulletin by Hugh Cassidy WA6AUD
Or now a days The Daily DX.

Any difference between these and today's Packet Cluster other than wide
distribution ?????

No, but that's a big difference.

The newsletters are useful but they don't tell you specifically who's on
what frequency *now*. If your source of DX news is The Daily DX, you
still need to be able to copy to know whether the station on 21024
really is FT5XO as predicted in the news bulletin.

On cluster, you can rely on someone else's copying ability.

(true, you'll occasionally get screwed that way!)
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

Caveat Lector wrote:
Hint to DXers: IF YOU CAN'T COPY CODE, DON'T BOTHER TRYING TO WORK DX ON
CW! That's what SSB and RTTY are for...
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com


Can't imagine any one who can't copy the code, trying to work CW DX or a
contest.

Never said anything about contests.

Any contester of value will welcome any CW op regardless of speed. I
would hope slower CW ops would not be intimidated by my high CQ speed
and would call anyway. (I realize that's probably not realistic) I
will happily slow down to match the speed at which you call me.

There was someone on one of the Chilean islands -- CE0X, I think -- who
didn't know Morse, a few years back. He worked a bunch of RTTY. One of
his RTTY contacts realized his terminal unit would work on CW, and
talked this guy into running a CW sked using his TU. That ended up
being far from his last CW QSO. There wasn't much rate -- automatic
Morse decoders are iffy enough with strong interference-free code,
pileups are a big problem! -- but his much-appreciated effort landed a
bunch of CW ops a rare one. And all with an op who didn't know CW at all...

Generally these folks can recognize their call sign at any speed, and with a
memory keyer -- pushing buttons (or keyboarding macros) is what they do to
work CW DX or contesting.

So these folks get befuzzled when the DX sends something out of the ordinary
such as QSO NR PSE etc. or UR ZONE ?

Or someone else's call, apparently.

My problem, quite simply, is with people who call the DX when the DX has
obviously answered someone else. To be honest I highly doubt poor
copying ability is responsible for most offenses. Usually, this crap
results from liddish behavior on the parts of ops whose Morse speed is
quite respectable. (I know I've worked at least three of the lids in
the FT5XO pile in the ARRL CW SS contest at speeds of at least 26wpm.
You don't complete a Sweepstakes exchange unless you're competent at the
Morse speed in use.)

--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message
...
Caveat Lector wrote:
Hint to DXers: IF YOU CAN'T COPY CODE, DON'T BOTHER TRYING TO WORK DX ON
CW! That's what SSB and RTTY are for...
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com


Can't imagine any one who can't copy the code, trying to work CW DX or a
contest.

Never said anything about contests.

Any contester of value will welcome any CW op regardless of speed. I
would hope slower CW ops would not be intimidated by my high CQ speed and
would call anyway. (I realize that's probably not realistic) I will
happily slow down to match the speed at which you call me.

There was someone on one of the Chilean islands -- CE0X, I think -- who
didn't know Morse, a few years back. He worked a bunch of RTTY. One of
his RTTY contacts realized his terminal unit would work on CW, and talked
this guy into running a CW sked using his TU. That ended up being far
from his last CW QSO. There wasn't much rate -- automatic Morse decoders
are iffy enough with strong interference-free code, pileups are a big
problem! -- but his much-appreciated effort landed a bunch of CW ops a
rare one. And all with an op who didn't know CW at all...

Generally these folks can recognize their call sign at any speed, and
with a memory keyer -- pushing buttons (or keyboarding macros) is what
they do to work CW DX or contesting.

So these folks get befuzzled when the DX sends something out of the
ordinary such as QSO NR PSE etc. or UR ZONE ?

Or someone else's call, apparently.

My problem, quite simply, is with people who call the DX when the DX has
obviously answered someone else. To be honest I highly doubt poor copying
ability is responsible for most offenses. Usually, this crap results from
liddish behavior on the parts of ops whose Morse speed is quite
respectable. (I know I've worked at least three of the lids in the FT5XO
pile in the ARRL CW SS contest at speeds of at least 26wpm. You don't
complete a Sweepstakes exchange unless you're competent at the Morse speed
in use.)

--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com


Very well stated - yep agree

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 06:14:04 GMT, Doug Smith W9WI
wrote:

Caveat Lector wrote:
The original poster sed that the DX packet Clusters were a contributing
cause of the mess on the bands.

I replied au contraire as it gives lots of info that should reduce the
chaos.

I think it does both.

I use it largely for the same thing Wes does: to help learn what
propagation is like; to help learn what DX is on; and to help learn the
operating habits of interesting DX stations.

And I certainly don't begrudge those who use packet to find where a
specific station is operating at a specific time and work them. There's
nothing wrong with that.

Packet might indeed contribute to some degree to getting callers off the
DX's frequency, people who might not have heard the DX say he's
listening up. (it is disturbing how often this is the DX's fault - how
often the DX is listening up but isn't saying so.) It might also inform
operators the DX is working by districts, or only working EU, or ???

Though really, packet shouldn't be necessary to these ends -- the DX
should be frequently indicating what they're doing, and the DX chasers
shouldn't be transmitting unless they're copying the DX well enough to
know what the DX is saying.

In what way has the clusters caused sloppiness?

In that people who can't hear/copy the DX can become aware of the DX's
presence.

In the days before spotting systems, I couldn't know FT5XO was on 21024
unless I was listening to 21024 and could copy the DX station
transmitting there. I wouldn't be calling FT5XO unless I could *hear*
FT5XO. Today, I look at DX Summit and I immediately know where the FT5
is.

===

I don't believe clusters will go away. I don't believe they *should* go
away. I don't believe there's anything wrong with the clusters
themselves or the way they're programmed.

I think the problem lies with a significant number of *users* who are
unable to operate in a sensible manner.

Right on.