> So if a guy wants to bang his head against the multi-path
> wall trying to work a 160m WAS, well, it's a semi-free
> country, right? After all, seems that's what all that
> 'pursuit of happiness' stuff is about...
Let's see ... that means I should be free to yell "Fire!"
the next time I go to the theater, drive past the school
your children or grandchildren attend at 120 MPH, burn
old tires on the lot next to your home, discharge my raw
sewage upstream of your drinking water supply. According
to your definition, 'pursuit of happiness' is all about
doing what you please without interference by others?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Blaine AC0C
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 1:46 AM
> To: lists@subich.com; 'RTTY Reflector'
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Topband: 160m in RTTY Contests
>
>
> Joe,
>
> Humans are not optimized to climb Everest. They do it for
> the challenge -
> to see if, despite the challenges, it can be done.
>
> So if a guy wants to bang his head against the multi-path
> wall trying to
> work a 160m WAS, well, it's a semi-free country, right?
> After all, seems
> that's what all that 'pursuit of happiness' stuff is about...
>
> 73/jeff/ac0c
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 12:44 AM
> To: "'RTTY Reflector'" <rtty@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Topband: 160m in RTTY Contests
>
> >
> >
> >> On Oct 31, 2009, at 6:29 PM, Bill, W6WRT wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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.
> >
> > There goes Bill again ... writing what he "wishes" were
> true without
> > any understanding of the physics behind the subject and
> ignoring the
> > experts in the field. 45 baud, 170 Hz FSK has a well established
> > minimum SNR that is not often met on long haul (more than
> groundwave
> > or NVIS) medium wave paths. In addition, "RTTY" is very
> sensitive to
> > the very kind of multipath distortion common on medium
> waves. Simply
> > put. RTTY as amateurs know it is not useful for much more than
> > local or limited regional QSOs on 160 meters and is certainly
> > not suited to international contesting.
> >
> > If there was a real interest in digital mode communication
> > at medium waves, the push would be for system using low baud rates,
> > multiple closely spaced tones and a robust coding that
> would work with
> > signal to noise ratios approaching 0 dB with multipath delays in
> > excess of 10 to 15 msec.
> >
> > Absent interest in an MW optimized protocol, calls for
> increased RTTY
> > activity, particularly contesting on 160 meters are nothing
> more than
> > intentional and destructive interference to other users of the band.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|