Build it and they will come... If these two contests are successful promoting RTTY on 160, others will surely follow. The band won't be as serene as it usually is, but with the sunspots on the increa
Hello, I create a poll for "Top Band 160m RTTY Contesting". Feel free to vote there and watch the result. Vote at: www.drcg.de 73 de Walter, DL4RCK, DL4R Walter Dallmeier Email: walter.dallmeier@dl
Gentlemen, I am confused at the comments of "narrow band" - and considering that 160m is 200khz wide. These two ideas do not seem to go together. So I wonder if there exists an assumption is that the
Treat an inanimate object with respect? Hmmmm.... 73 Jim W7RY -- _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtt
Hello, here the summary of the Poll "Top Band 160m RTTY Contesting" with 67 votes after 3 days. The result is around 50/50 of Yes/No. It seems that the RTTY community is pretty evenly split about thi
I would not call this a poll from the RTTY community. There were quite a few responses on this reflector from the top band reflector too. Most top band hard core folks don't want RTTY on "their" band
However, the poll was announced only on RTTY and not TopBand. Unless one was both a 160 meter regular and subscribed to RTTY, they would not have seen the poll announcement. It is interesting that t
My interpretation of this poll is that the 67 respondents are split yes/no. That doesn't necessarily extend to the RTTY community or the larger community of people who care about what happens on 160
Jim, et. el. I tried RTTY on 160m last night. No luck and lots of noise. I vote for Chen -- his explanation for 160m operation is not emotional and makes much sense. 73 de Phil - N8PS PS. I hit 'repl
Joe, Serious about this reply? RTTY is "polluting" the band and somehow AM is acceptable? How many RTTY sigs can you get into the bandwidth of a single AM transmission. In fact, how many RTTY sigs co
Absolutely 1) RTTY is in traditionally CW portion of the band while AM activity is generally in the relatively clear area close to or above 1900 KHz. 2) RTTY with its continuous carrier is far more
Joe, I'm curious - which parts of 160m do you consider heavily used and which lightly used? The reason I ask... Once you get above about 1830 or so, and then on up to around 1900 or so, it seems that
How can a band be treated with respect? Bow down towards the east before we operate or something? I'm sorry, guess I'm missing something somewhere. 73 Tom W7WHY ______________________________________
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: I have heard over and over that "160 is not suitable for RTTY" with every kind of explanation you can imagine, mostly centering on selective fading and multipath distortion o
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Absolute nonsense. Anyone who has spent much time actually operating 160 meter RTTY knows it works just fine. This is one canard that should die a quick and merciful death. O
You make an excellent point, Bill. We can agree that it is possible to make a 160m RTTY contact; however, a RTTY contest on 160m would be frustrating to all (to say the least). As you point out, the
I am consistently amazed by the negative comments why a 160 meter RTTY contest would be a "bad thing". If we had only listened to the nay-sayers in the past we would still be using spark. In the earl
Phil said.... Don't include me in that statement Phil! I would welcome 160 meter RTTY contest with open arms. The spin on this thread is quite amuzing! 73 Jim W7RY -- No virus found in this incoming
Agreed and well said Robert! 73 Jim W7RY -- _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
The point is not that you cannot use the low bands for RTTY. No one has claimed that in this thread. The point is that steam RTTY requires much higher SNR to operate under propagation conditions that