As been identified on the HRWB I am more of a propagation ham I will spend hours/days building something make a contact and then put it in a box. Then start the next thing. I'm not too much for rag chewing.
Currently I'm trying to learn CW but it seems this might be a little much for me we will see.
Hope to make some new friends and contacts here.
@kc9zmy Yeah, I'm the same way and I go through spurts with it. I got my WAS award earlier this year, and almost immediately after that my station went quiet. Ragchewing is fine, but it's not my thing, especially since I'm not the typical ham demographic.
@roadriverrail That is not how radio works. Coverage depends on propagation which, by its very nature, is unreliable. And if you chose a particular more which is somewhat reliable, let us say 80m in the evenings for an area about 500km wide, then you will not be alone.
@M0YNG @W1CDN @dl2jml My point is that I do not believe my 100 watts and a wire dipole, especially one that can't do 80m, is going to be sufficient to reliably run a net. It seems a lot of net controls run legal limit and can reposition their antennas to get their best lobe to cover where most of the people for that net are at a given time. But I could be wrong. I'm happy to be corrected.
@dl2jml @M0YNG @W1CDN A net is generally a little more than a multi-party sked. They have generally-dedicated times and frequencies, their geographic extent is typically "anywhere", they sometimes even have streaming bridges or recordings posted online. They also typically have a station that serves as "control", similar to a moderator, so that discussion is orderly and without signal interference. They're a fixture of HF worldwide. You can search for them or go to https://www.netlogger.org/.
@roadriverrail @W1CDN @M0YNG I tried netlogger.org, but it does not appear to have a list of nets and only shows 4 (which I understand to be presently talking). As I said before, HF is not really adapted to such a project (although maybe in the USA it would somewhat work in the lower bands). So: yes, you would need more watts and a good antenna, but that is because that particular project is a difficult one.
@dl2jml @W1CDN @M0YNG I'm not sure I'd say it's "not really adapted" to something that is a known common use of HF. There might be 4 talking *now* but there are lots and lots of them. Please just Google "list of hf nets" if you don't believe me. It typically takes powerful stations to be consistent presences on them, yes, and especially to be a net control, but your first-principles reasoning is steering you wrong.
@dl2jml @M0YNG @W1CDN Appreciated that your intent is to discuss, but please be aware you've mostly been explaining why something that exists wouldn't work. Looking at your call, I'm presuming you're in Germany; a little digging did turn up the Euopean Marine Mobile net at 14.297 as well as the Transatlantic Net. Perhaps they're less common in Europe or perhaps my searching in English isn't helping.
@roadriverrail @dl2jml @W1CDN @M0YNG
Kit, practically what service area were you thinking of for your social SSB net. Thinking of the Maritime Mobile Service Net with it's many net controls to cover the area because of skip distance, is this something you start on a band with what you have, then grow other net controls to relay for you in areas you don't have coverage?
Mastodon.Radio is a community space for the Amateur (Ham) Radio community. It's entirely funded by its users. Come join us and talk radio, technology, and more!