Tom - it's clear from your comments that you have an agenda and are
hell-bent on imposing your view of how 160 operations ought to be carried
out. You're making a mistake and I hope that other RTTY operators who want
to use 160 meters won't be drawn into your folly.
K8AC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Giella KN4LF" <kn4lf@tampabay.rr.com>
To: "a TARA RTTY eGroup" <RTTY-TARA@yahoogroups.com>; "a RTTY Reflector"
<rtty@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting
Floyd et all,
Happy New Year 2005 to all!
Whether we are talking "regions" or countries/entities the end result is
the same, differing international band allocations. Yes I propose an
international RTTY contest on 160 and/or inclusion of 160 meters in all
established RTTY contests. CW and SSB contesters get by with the
conflicting band allocation issue and so can we RTTY'ers.
Yes I agree with your observations about the poor behavior of SSB etc.
contesters on other bands but RTTY and 160 meter contesters are a
different breed than the rest of the cabal.
Yes I also agree that 160 meters is much busier now compared to 30 years
ago when the LORAN A stuff was going on. But at the same time it is much
less active than just 5-10 years ago. Every DXer in the 1845 kc Florida
group has observed the same trend. It's not a propagation issue as I know
a little about propagation http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm , it's more an
issue of an exponential increase in silent keys, CCR antenna issues and
attraction to the Internet.
There exists a small sociopathic group of CW only on 160 meter dinosaur
mentality operators that want the band to stay under utilized and
therefore a sort QRM free semi private playground or gated community for
their single pursuit of CW operation. I on the other hand support
increased use of 160 meters to include all existing modes, while providing
protection of narrow bandwidth modes from wide bandwidth modes.
As far as DX windows go, these gentleman's agreements no longer exist on
160 meters, thanks to the recent ARRL declaration stemming from the ARRL
160 meter Ad Hoc Committee recommendations.
In any event let's agree to disagree on the issue as gentlemen and still
be friends.
73,
Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF
Retired Space & Atmospheric Weather Forecaster
Plant City, FL, USA
Grid Square EL87WX
Lat & Long 27 58 33.6397 N 82 09 52.4052 W
kn4lf@arrl.net
KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio History: http://www.kn4lf.com/index.htm
Tom - I didn't say anything about allocations differing amongst
countries, I referred to REGIONS. Here is the latest IARU band plan that
I could find, and it shows the recommended band usage in the three
Regions. As pointed out on the bottom of that page, these are only
recommendations and are not binding upon any government.
http://www.iaru-r2.org/hf_e.htm
I assume that any contest you would propose would be international in
nature and not just for USA or Region 2 stations. Region 1 stations who
are interested in being good radio citizens would be restricted to
1838-1842 KHz and wouldn't use the 1805-1815 segment.
I understand your enthusiasm in thinking that contesters are "one cut
above", but behavior observed in contests at this location simply don't
bear that out. Take a listen on 40 meter DX SSB frequencies during any
of the DX contests and listen to all the USA stations who are calling the
CQing DX on their frequency, far below the bottom of the US band. Note
the callsigns and see how many of them are regular contesters.
Perhaps propagation in Florida on 160 hasn't been very good the past few
years, but the band here in NC is certainly not empty of QSOs (OK, don't
hear any RTTY QSOs!). Activity over the past 30 years has increased
substantially, both from a US and a DX standpoint. The one big
difference I notice is that even the highly skilled contesters don't have
a clue what the DX window is for, and apparently think that is where the
DX stations listen for them to call CQ.
K8AC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Giella KN4LF" <kn4lf@tampabay.rr.com>
To: "a TARA RTTY eGroup" <RTTY-TARA@yahoogroups.com>; "a RTTY Reflector"
<rtty@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 1:06 PM
Subject: [RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting
Floyd et all,
Yes I also see wide AFSK RTTY and PSK31 signals on the HF bands. When I
politely mention same to the offending parties the response is usually
hostile or indifferent at best. But I don't think it would be an issue
amongst contesters as we are one cut above the rest in technical
knowledge and operating skill.
The defacto digital operating band on 160 meters is 1805-1815 kc. But
just as 160 meter CW and SSB contesters spread out during a contest and
ragchewers find something else to do, the same would happen with an RTTY
contest. Also as far as 160 meter band segment allocations differing
amongst countries, that happens on all the HF bands. You just make do.
Compared to just 5-10 years ago the 160 meter band is virtually empty of
QSO's, so an RTTY contest would be beneficial to the band as far as use
thereof.
Just my .02!
73,
Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/2004
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/2004
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|