RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] Change in pileup procedure?

To: "Phil Sussman" <psussman@pactor.com>, "Steve" <ik4wmh@virgilio.it>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Change in pileup procedure?
From: Glenn Wyant <va3dx@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 11:36:40 -0500
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
This happened back in the early 1990's when
one of the BOUVET operations was on.

They announced that they would be answering any
calls on the 20 meter band ( SSB ).

Qsos, nets etc were overrun with callers qrming everyone.

This is a bad idea.

Glenn VA3DX
=====================================
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 11:15 AM
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>