Archive
 
 
  Topic: Simulated HF Radio (5 replies)
#1     Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:44 pm
KA6SAL
38207 shorewood ln. Fresno
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2
Subject: Simulated HF Radio

I had been warned that I might lost my ticket by using cq100 when I am not yet qualified to use HF radio. But the question should have been, are we using a radio? I don't think so. We are using a simulated radio that operates like radio. If it is simulated then its not real radio. So guys who earned higher tickets, don't be scared, you can continue using your HF rigs while I continue to use CQ100. Am sure that we will not hear each other even if we use thesame frequency as I am connected to internet while you are transmitting via antenna on the air. CQ100 is not actually on the air. So what's the fuse? Try it instead of crying and am sure you will stay with CQ100. 73
__________________
#2     Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:10 pm
KJ5XX
Frisco, TX
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6
Subject:

Hmm, so you really think that people will actually PREFER CQ100 over actual radio??? Let's analyze that statement for a moment:

- If you don't have a rig - then yes you would prefer CQ100 (for obvious reasons)

- If you have a lower level license and/or don't care what frequency you operate on or how you or others operate (since on CQ100 you can operate any way you please and no one is going to say a thing), then yes, I would think you would prefer CQ100.

- If you don't want any interferance or governance from the FCC including having to adhere to Part 97, then yes, I'm CERTAIN that you would prefer CQ100.

- If you want to be limited to only a few operating modes (HF exclusively and CW, PSK and SSB to a lesser extent) meaning you don't want to operate on other bands and modes not supported by CQ100 then yes, I would think you would prefer CQ100

However if you...

- Studied hard to become a ham and respect the influence that the FCC and part 97 have over the airwaves and how operators are ALLOWED to operate, then you will prefer REAL HAM RADIO.

- Enjoy the fact that the bands can be crowded at times and have a lot of activity, with many stations to call, around the globe then you will prefer using an actual radio.

- If you have made an investment in equipment (radios, antennas, etc) and plan to use your investment, then I'm sure you will prefer using that equipment.

- If you enjoy experiementing and building your own equipment and antennas, then I'm certain that you will want to use what you built.

- If you enjoy ham radio's many modes and bands - PSK, packet, HF, VHF, 220/440, 6m, 17m, then I think you will prefer actual operating vs. just talking over VOIP.

And I'm sure there are a bunch of others that I haven't even thought of in the couple minutes it took me to write this.

Let's face it, CQ100 is NOT Ham radio at any level. It is, however, a really neat program that a dedicated ham wrote to fill a gap he perceived (for those that travel a lot, those that can't afford their own station, etc.), that allows hams to talk in a psuedo-radio simulated environment over the Internet. Is it ham radio, NO, but does it have value? I would have to say A RESOUNDING YES!!!

But CQ100 IS NOT a replacement for Ham Radio; it was never intended to be and it's simply not going to happen. But, it's a neat supplement to the hobby and I hope it stays around for awhile.
__________________
#3     Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:03 am
DL4OCE
Braunschweig
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1
Subject:

One question...is qso100 anything more or less than Skype with synthetic noise?
__________________
#4     Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:37 pm
DG7LAE
Luebeck
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 67
Subject:

es ist Internet-Chat mit dem Aussehen eines Transceivers , ich nenn es Klönschnack - Radio .
Im 29 MHz Bereich gibt es einige HF-Links ähnlich Echolink , zu sehen nur bei Aktivität = wie in der Realität .

Ich mag CQ100 sehr gern , man ist unter Funkkollegen, entsprechende Themen sind möglich und - da meist englischsprachig - ideal , um ein wenig sein Englisch aufzupolieren .
Skype hat wesentlich mehr Funktionen , dies sieht halt nur mehr nach "Funk" aus und bei Interesse kann man auch CW und digitale Betriebsarten wie PSK , RTTY machen , eigentlich ganz gut für die ersten Schritte zum Kennenlernen eines Programms bevor man sich damit auf die HF "traut" .

vy 73 Uli

http://www.mydarc.de/dg7lae
__________________
#5     Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:57 pm
KB0OXD
Denver, Colorado
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 19
Subject:

Hi everyone:

DL4OCE wrote:
One question...is qso100 anything more or less than Skype with synthetic noise?

Yes in the sense that it's secure, allows room for RF Linking and offers more "modes" than Skype could ever offer.

Does that answer yor question?

Cheers & 73 :D
__________________
#6     Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:03 pm
KB0OXD
Denver, Colorado
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 19
Subject:

Hi everyone:

My main reason for preferring CQ100 is that it prepares me for the real world of HF (Minus the QRM and other band conditions). Moreover, having nets on here at all hours of the day & night merely brings that out even further.

Now if we can just pitch the idea of using CQ100 to those in emergency communications (i.e. ARES, RACES, SKYWARN & NTS), it would be just as established as EchoLink and IRLP are.

Just my $.02 worth :D

Cheers & 73 :D
__________________




Copyright ©2013 Cormac Technologies Inc.