IDXC
The topics floating around were
IDXC
The QSL Cards have arrived from the printer.
At first I was depending on anecdotal and past experience of what I could recall working Oceania from the west coast. But that was an incomplete understanding. A friend from the club did me a solid favor and sent me a batch of Propagation Data tables and with that information plus the VOACAP Propagation Wheel feature I had a better idea of what region and what bands to work.The other impact was my local time schedule on the island -- I had to adjust to work more often when the opening was there and less coordinated to my local 'waking time' hours.
A few reasons for me to choose LHI stood out. First, it was relatively desireable. Not super rare, but at least in the mid 60's in terms of most wanted. A few very exciting locations were more desireable in the Most Wanted list, but the history of the island was more interesting to me. Plus, a recent DX'p from members of the Willamette DX Club made it seem approachable. For a first-try DX'p, it had an easier logistics for transport -- almost daily flights - depending on the weather. I would learn later that the weather there is far more chaotic than the reports indicate so I was actually lucky to get into the island. Last, it's an environment that is relatively safe and I wasn't too concerned about personal safety. It's a small island that is sparsely populated with one law enforcement officer for 300-ish people that live on the island. Last, but not least the island is so beautiful and magical for a DX'p.
This is a difficult question to answer. For pure conveneience and ease of installation, the vertical antenna system is ideal. Compact (mostly) and just requires a good set of radials (for typical installations) - if it had been on the beach, the VDA (Vertical Dipole Array) would have been selected -- but the common aspect of the preferred antenna system is a vertical antenna.
But that issue is somewhat academic -- with more weight and shipping allowance, of course a beam antenna would have made a lot of sense. The VDA actually serves both those purposes with the excellent F/B gain ratio, but without the two-element VDA, a vertical wouldn't compete very well on the higher bands as much as a beam. Beams need elevation and that adds a whole long list of infrastructure that would have been ruled out for this particular DX'p to Lord Howe Island.The real heart of the issue is the Location of the Antenna relative to everything else. Permission to place the antenna where I need it to be and with a location that is virtually unaffected by the possibility of coupling with nearby structures is the key. I didn't have that on Lord Howe Island, but I made due with what I had -- and in retrospect it wasn't al that bad -- I worked into EU and SA as predicted. Plus despite a few certain areas in NA, I could reach into NA. Except in all cases, I wasn't very loud. That makes an impact of course -- and I can assign the issue to the antenna location more so than the particular antenna system (assuming vertical or even VDA.I think I also added a note to the answer that spending a lot more time optimizing the antenna for the bands I intended to work would have been time well spent. I used a home-brew clone of the very popular DX Commander antenna. It's a good antenna (the original) and gets good reviews. When deployed in an ideal location, it will perform well. My design was slightly different -- the space between the band-elements was marginally larger and I used aluminum wire rather than copper wire (for weight issues). I remember having a debate with myself if I was going to bring a retail pre-configured vertical like a CrankIR -- I was just really concerned about the weight and the size for this particular DX'p.
This was another interesting question that I wanted to answer more fully in the presentation. I had made copious notes during the Lord Howe DX'p on what I would change about the operation.
Here is the abbreviated list of what would have been different. Not all of these items are purely "things" but aspects or characteristics about the DX'p.
In order to brush up on copying long form QSO, I resumed taking part in the Long Island CW class.
It's a different style of class than those offered by CW-Ops. In LICW, the classes run all week so it's possible to hop-scotch through two or three classes at the same level during the week for more reinforcement. No sign ups, just join the Zoom.
One of the questions that was asked during class got me thinking.
The question was (paraphrased) "Is there any scientific study in literature that this method works?" -- The "this" was referring to the method taught by LICW. For those who haven't done Long Island CW Club classes the method for the most part (at least in the intermediate classes) is based on:
What made me consider this is my own experience. What I've come to realize is that there is almost a 1:1 correspondence between an amateur radio operator learning CW and a method that is ideal for him or her. One size does not fit all.
Seldom do I hear students across the board indicate that the method works uniformly across the class.
My response to the question went along these lines:
For those who like to divide the world in threes, there are three types of copy to deal with.
Whichever style the student gravitates towards, I've noticed that the common element is something that isn't taught but acquired -- confidence. Confidence to just try -- confidence to work simple contests (K1USN SST) or state QSO parties can lead to confidence to calling CQ and that can lead to confidence to doing long-form QSO -- but there is no road map. No one has to do contesting, or CQ'ing or long-form QSO. You end up where you're comfortable. Whichever way you do go, just doing it -- even with the mistakes -- is really valuable because it builds confidence. Being on the air, using the CW mode is the point -- that's the goal. If you'll never be motivated for contesting, then don't contest. Just call CQ and work the stations as you like.
In my experience, nothing beats just doing it. Whatever it is. I do contesting so I can practice Running and copying callsigns for DX. If I wanted to have rag-chew long form QSO in CW, I would. But I don't because it doesn't go to my objectives of running DX pile ups. Contesting is a trial by fire approach -- learning to copy call signs and timing responses to CQ in contests isn't necessarily going to make you better at rag-chew long-form.
Nevertheless, doing anything with CW is going to make it easier to do it the next time and so on. And, if QSO's is your thing, then just call CQ and muddle through. Or if rag-chew long-form QSO is your thing, then drop your call and get into it.
Unless it's a contest situation where people are just trying to keep up rate, no one is really going to care much if you make mistakes. In all the time I worked CW, I found that every QSO over CW was greeted with kindness. "They" want to work you.
I don't know if scholarly papers have been written about methods to teach CW. My guess is whatever those papers say, they'll likely be with a conclusion of "this is the right way to learn CW because we say so." Fair enough. But, no matter what the method is -- gaining confidence is not a lesson plan -- confidence comes from within you. If you want to learn CW, you will.
As Tom Berson, ND2T said "Aspiration without allocation is folly." -- the gist of what is saying is: put the time into leaning and practice those elements that you are weak on. Practice to your weaknesses.
Good luck.
IDXC With respect to the IDXC -- The situation might be more fluid or perhaps I didn't understand the details. The topics floating a...