Discussion of the Peter Bobek award, and TransAtlantic II]
Sat, 15 Apr 2000 18:31:00 -0400
John W Gould wrote:
> As one of the prime movers to get the award in place I felt that I needed to
> respond to Larry's comments. Firstly, I must make it clear that I totally
> agree with Larry's approach. I also ought to say that my views here are my
> own, rather than representing those of the RSGB HF Committee. I also
> haven't discussed this reply with the other sponsors of the award - the DARC
> or AMRAD, though I suspect that they would agree with my line.
> One of the purposes of the award was to remember a modest but determined
> experimenter and excellent operator who amongst other significant amateur
> achievements was one of the pioneers on 136kHz. The basic idea came from
> another determined and successful experimenter who participates in this
> list. The award was also put in place to act as a driver for those within
> the hobby who use an award to sustain their interest in meeting a specific
> goal. Clearly, it will be difficult to meet the terms of the challenge.
> Larry is right to remind us that before anyone is successful we may need to
> achieve the 2-way QSO at higher ERP. Maybe the guys in the Azores or
> Iceland who, for the purposed of the award we decided to exclude, may be
> able to add a valuable contribution by demonstrating a 1 watt ERP QSO over
> part of the distance. Both steps will help calibrate what is needed to be
> done in order to meet the challenge.
> We have to remember that the challenge is optional. I have some fun doing
> DXCC on the HF Bands, but I don't do IOTA - that's my choice. My XYL can't
> understand why I do amateur radio as the Internet or the 'phone is so much
> easier and can be cheaper - but that's another debate!
> Through simple things like lists of records and firsts, awards, some amongst
> us have been encouraged to improve their technical and operating knowledge.
> Not all - some have drive to do that without the lists, awards, etc. Each
> to his/her own. Over the last few years aerial and receiving capability has
> improved significantly. Work on information coding and modulation,
> developed for other reasons has been successfully applied, e.g. G3PLX, G4JNT
> and VE2IQ.... to name but a few of the experimenters.
> It doesn't matter what drives us, but don't let's open up a debate about the
> rules for the Transatlantic Challenge.
> I look forward to monitoring the TransAtlantic II activity - I hope that
> others are inspired to set up other experiments, whether or not an award or
> certificate follows the achievement.
> I probably need an award to transmit LF outside the boundary of my garden!
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
> > Behalf Of Larry Kayser
> > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 10:54
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org; Mike Dennison
> > Subject: LF: Discussion of the Peter Bobek award, and TransAtlantic II
> > Greetings All.
> > Gentlemen:
> > I would sincerely appreciate if discussions about the Peter Bobek award in
> > any terms of the activities of the TransAtlantic II project be avoided now
> > and until after TransAtlantic II results are known at the end of next
> > November.
> > I am very sure that Peter Bobek was a person of honour, and some
> > justly feel
> > that the award was conceived and now promoted as a recognition of a great
> > achievement in LF.
> > The facts are, that the award requirements must and will have
> > ZERO impact on
> > how TransAtlantic II will be undertaken from this side of the Atlantic. I
> > have only read the award requirements in a most cursory manner
> > and will not
> > read them again until after we return from VO1 in November. I
> > have nothing
> > against or for the award, but I do know my focus - have signals heard both
> > ways and if possible get a two way QSO across the North Atlantic in
> > November.
> > The simple facts of the matter are, that what we have to do to
> > get an LF QSO
> > in the amateur LF band across the North Atlantic the FIRST time
> > will be many
> > dB in excess of what will be required to have the 200th or 2000th
> > QSO across
> > the North Atlantic on LF.
> > We can test the results achieved by TransAtlantic II, and wouldn't it be
> > wonderful if we could do it with 1W erp, after the test period is
> > over. If
> > the award requirements have been met then well and good. If the award
> > requirements have not been meet this also is well and good. My personal
> > feelings are that I would really like to have a serious discussion later
> > this year about the qualification for the award, that would mean that some
> > signals were heard either way or a completed QSO was achieved
> > over the North
> > Atlantic.....
> > Summary, the award does not drive the project, the award is a byproduct of
> > the results of the project.
> > Larry
> > VA3LK