I completely agree with the comments given by N8PS. The so-called "new
procedure"which is near the "Russian roulette" approach does not make any sense
for me. It avoid any intelligent practice of DX by those and specially little
pistols who works the rare one with eyes on 2 computers
screens. One screen showing the best computed optimal propagation opportunity,
the second screen showing the display of an SDR-driven spectrum analyser such
as SpectraView or any other appropriate software. The right instant and the
right small window in the split, that is fun and the only
fun which I enjoy after 55 years of practice which often leads to "first call
in the log". I would make an analogy with fishing.
For me the "new procedure" is equivalent to "industrial trawling" and the
clever way of DXing is equivalent to "trout fly fishing".
The second one is far beyond compare.
Lets continue to have fun despite the problems encountered. Lids, cops and
frustrated or just insane QRMers are just human beings and anything can happen
in human behaviour.
73 to all from Jim F2LZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Sussman" <psussman@pactor.com>
To: "Steve" <ik4wmh@virgilio.it>
Cc: <rtty@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Change in pileup procedure?
> Steve makes a good point.
>
> The new proposal does have a distinct disadvantage. The current
> 'split' operation supposedly allows the DX station to answer
> without being 'overrun' by continual calls. Essentially the idea
> is the callers 'stop calling' when the DX station is working
> someone. This allows the DX to elicit the next call(s).
>
> Under the proposed plan, the callers have no idea when the DX
> is talking or listening. They are instead randomly transmitting
> on random UP frequencies without any idea where the DX is actually
> working. The announced advantage is there is no jamming of the DX
> station nor are there any 'split workers.'
>
> Without a periodic return to the original calling frequency there
> can be no coordination. Under that line of thought, why should the
> DX ever return to any frequency. Rather he should just keep working
> and moving.(Hunt and pounce in reverse you might say)
>
> This causes calling stations to keep calling over and over without
> vacating -- thus keeping multiple frequencies occupied with callers
> (unless they are worked in which case they would be immediately
> replaced). In short, there could be no synchronization with the
> operating pattern of the DX station.
>
> Regarding QSOs in progress in the UP range, there would be direct
> contact with the continually callers ("This frequency is in use")
> causing continual migration.
>
> It is only replacing one type of QRM with another. Under the
> proposal however, more stations are actually transmitting at the
> same time (no pausing) out of sequence with each other.
>
> Oh well - QRM is QRM
>
> 73 de Phil - N8PS
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|