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 @kc9zmy There are more hams who are not "the typical ham demographic" than one would think. They are just less visible, because they talk less.

@dl2jml @kc9zmy I'm very much sure that that's the case, and that it becomes a circular problem. If I had a station powerful enough to be a standard net control for, say, LGBTQ+ hams, I would.

@kc9zmy @roadriverrail ??? What is a station "powerful enough to be a standard net control"?

@dl2jml @kc9zmy You know... something that reliably gets enough coverage that I could run a social SSB net.

@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.

@dl2jml @roadriverrail if Kit doesn't have confidence in the station, it may not be a great experience for everyone.

@W1CDN @dl2jml @roadriverrail yes, I guessed that Kit had had some experience in the past that suggested their station wasn't well suited to being net controller, and that they did understand the foibles of radio propagation.

@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.

@roadriverrail @M0YNG @W1CDN My point is actually that I don't understand what you are trying to do when you say "run a net". You mean: "have regular skeds with a group of people"? How far would they be geographically speaking? Is that something which is common where you live?

@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 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.

Follow

@M0YNG @roadriverrail @W1CDN But maybe you could make the project work by using networked relays and hotspots. Let us suppose that you use DMR and Brandmeister (C4FM or D-Star being other options). You can simply define a talkgroup, and likely minded people could use it, either using existing relays or by using a personal hotspot. That seems easier to implement.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon.Radio

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!