Hi all.
I would never end a CQ with a CR or a CRLF.
I have a CRLF that print only in locally, after the switching to RX,
for my view.
But the practice of ending a CQ with a CR or CRLF was strongly deprecated here.
That was for reasons on witch I fully agreed and I still agree. Even
using a trackball and having accelerated to motion sensing
acceleration start point on it.
I see all the others frantically moving their mouses UP and jumping up
from the working surface to get the call of anyone other. While the
decoders are printing meaningless noise downward at least of one line,
but often more. ... : -) Try a trackball or give more acceleration to
it, thus shortening, quite, the needed trail. But get acquainted
before :-)
On another side ... That's true, the last 12 months, had shown a great
improvement of the latest RTTY RBN recordings. But well before, the
older software for the RTTY RBN, haven't had this issue, nor - it's a
second issues - the high rate of bogus call we had seen in the past
year. I.E. W1AYD instead of IW1AYD or I1RY instead of IQ1RY and even
IT1RY if I recall ...
BTW since one year ago, the new RTTY skimmer introduction, there are
much more skimmers and statistics may play a role in all this. Big
numbers gives big views. Small numbers of records may had given a
littlest role for each of the issues here written.
Nonetheless, time will improve the software, rediscovering tips and
tricks and leaving us with newest and strangest traps and pitfalls.
That's the nature of software, not of the free or the bought software,
all of it.
This will not or could not be for the bandmap cluttering. There is a
cure that could be simple and inside ours preferred logger: shortening
the "Time To Live" of entries would often given relief from
cluttering.
Doing it both, manually or by setup - with my preferences on the last, I mean.
Accordingly with the "now big numbers of records" cleaning all those
older than 15' instead of 30' will clean the older and not repeated
RBN entries in the bandmap.
I am thinking to the standard TTL defaulted by N1MM+: 30(?). I
switched it to 20'and now to 15'. Until now, I use a lot to be at the
multiplier desk, I didn't seen problems arising from there. Nothing
that could not be solved listening/reading AGN and AGN.
This will also cure the older bogus call bunch coming out on times and
dwelling there for nothing.
73 de iw1ayd Salvo
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:03 AM, <rtty-request@contesting.com> wrote:
> Send RTTY mailing list submissions to
> rtty@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> rtty-request@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rtty-owner@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RTTY digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: bandpass filters (k3mm@verizon.net)
> 2. Re: RTTY Skimmer ( pcooper)
> 3. Re: RTTY Skimmer (Pete Smith N4ZR)
> 4. Re: bandpass filters (Mike)
> 5. Re: RTTY Skimmer (Dave Hachadorian)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:30:44 -0500 (CDT)
> From: k3mm@verizon.net
> To: ww3s@zoominternet.net, rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] bandpass filters
> Message-ID:
>
> <4986440.1084922.1458667844738.JavaMail.root@vznit170080.mailsrvcs.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I've been using the Dunestar 600s for years at 60 to 100 watts throughput
> for almost 20 years. They had some issues early on with caps frying for
> multiple reasons. As with any of these bandpass filters, do not use an
> antenna tuner on the radio side of the filters. This can put undue stress
> (voltage) across the caps if there is a mismatch and will definitely blow
> them up. This includes the tuner built into your rig. Never activate it if
> you are using BPFs.
>
>
> Ty K3MM
>
>
> On 03/18/16, WW3S wrote:
>
> Whats everyone using for low power rtty contesting?
>
> Anyone using Dunestar and pushing 100w to them? How about the newer Hamation
> 419?
>
> Or does everyone throttle back to 80-85w, or push 100w?
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:31:51 -0700
> From: " pcooper" <pcooper@guernsey.net>
> To: "Al Kozakiewicz" <akozak@hourglass.com>
> Cc: <rtty@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Skimmer
> Message-ID: <20160322103151.5CE67FA3@m0087791.ppops.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Al AB2ZY and the group,
>
> I have local access to a skimmer cluster as well as a normal cluster.
> Both run simultaneously here in the shack 24/7. Looking at the skimmer
> cluster, I repeatedly see spots for stations that are responding to a CQ
> call, rather than calling CQ themselves.
>
> I have tried using the skimmer cluster in a contest, and that simply clogs up
> the bandmap with loads of spots that aren't calling CQ.
> I know the skimmer clusters are supposed to be intelligent and only spots
> calls who are sending CQ, but I see far more spots for those that aren't.
>
> Where cluster access is allowed in a contest, I will use the normal cluster,
> as I mostly use it to gauge whether another band is open, or worth trying. If
> there is some juicy DX spotted, I may well try for them, depending on the
> situation, but generally, if that juicy DX has just been spotted, it's
> usually pointless trying, as loads of others will already be there.
> This was evident during the BARTG contest at the weekend, as I came across
> FP/KV1J calling CQ on 20m, so I tried to get in, but he had a mini pile-up
> going. I did try a couple of times more, but then he got spotted, and I gave
> up, as it just got silly, with callers shouting over each other and the
> exchange in progress.
> Happily came across him again later, and got in first shout. It was similar
> with HP3/VY2SS.
>
> That's just my own view of things.....
>
> 73 de Phil GU0SUP
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:13:37 -0400
> From: Pete Smith N4ZR <n4zr@contesting.com>
> To: rtty@contesting.com
> Cc: RBN-OPS@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Skimmer
> Message-ID: <56F1B581.5040808@contesting.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> I can appreciate Phil's frustration. Those of us working on the RBN are
> well aware that the differentiation between CQers and callers in RTTY
> Skimmer Server is still a work in progress.
>
> The way it works is quite different from, and more complex than CW
> Skimmer, and involves a contests.ini file that attempts to define, with
> probabilities, the transmission formats that will be used in a given
> contest . RTTY Skimserv node operators consult with each other on how
> best to design these files to accurately differentiate between CQers and
> callers, but of course if they make mistakes or even forget to change
> over for the weekend from the normal profile, an increased error rate
> will result.
>
> After a major RTTY contest not long ago, one of the participants pointed
> out that onething confusing RTTY Skimserv may be the practice of
> *ending* a CQ with "CQ". If a CQer does that, and doesn't close with a
> carriage return, and a caller drops his call in right away, RTTY
> Skimserv doesn't know whether to spot the CQer or the caller. I've
> certainly seen this happen.
>
> Another possible help - the CT1BOH Skimquality filters in AR Cluster V6
> let you flag or filter out stations that change frequency each time they
> are spotted. Obviously, a caller sliding up and down the band will be
> flagged and (if you choose) not displayed. I think VE7CC has something
> similar.
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> Download the new N1MM Logger+ at
> <http://N1MM.hamdocs.com>. Check
> out the Reverse Beacon Network at
> <http://reversebeacon.net>, now
> spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
> For spots, please use your favorite
> "retail" DX cluster.
>
> On 3/22/2016 1:31 PM, pcooper wrote:
>> Al AB2ZY and the group,
>>
>> I have local access to a skimmer cluster as well as a normal cluster.
>> Both run simultaneously here in the shack 24/7. Looking at the skimmer
>> cluster, I repeatedly see spots for stations that are responding to a CQ
>> call, rather than calling CQ themselves.
>>
>> I have tried using the skimmer cluster in a contest, and that simply clogs
>> up the bandmap with loads of spots that aren't calling CQ.
>> I know the skimmer clusters are supposed to be intelligent and only spots
>> calls who are sending CQ, but I see far more spots for those that aren't.
>>
>> Where cluster access is allowed in a contest, I will use the normal cluster,
>> as I mostly use it to gauge whether another band is open, or worth trying.
>> If there is some juicy DX spotted, I may well try for them, depending on the
>> situation, but generally, if that juicy DX has just been spotted, it's
>> usually pointless trying, as loads of others will already be there.
>> This was evident during the BARTG contest at the weekend, as I came across
>> FP/KV1J calling CQ on 20m, so I tried to get in, but he had a mini pile-up
>> going. I did try a couple of times more, but then he got spotted, and I gave
>> up, as it just got silly, with callers shouting over each other and the
>> exchange in progress.
>> Happily came across him again later, and got in first shout. It was similar
>> with HP3/VY2SS.
>>
>> That's just my own view of things.....
>>
>> 73 de Phil GU0SUP
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:00:12 -0400
> From: Mike <k4gmh@arrl.net>
> To: Jerry Flanders <jeflanders@comcast.net>
> Cc: RTTY Contesting <rtty@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] bandpass filters
> Message-ID:
> <CAOfCAiKhc-yzRb_F9yJnksHJ2S0cA71-tepnhvPee17Lg+bSLA@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Along with what Jerry, W4UK, wrote a couple sets of homemade W3NQN filters
> and homemade stubs used for SO2R, 1500 W, RTTY contesting with a single
> tower for supporting all the antennas. Yes, you can only get within ~10
> KHz of the second harmonic frequency but that still leaves a lot of the
> band available.
>
> W3NQN filters (homemade) are used. The initial set of the filters were
> tuned using just a MFJ259 antenna analyzer. This was over 10 years ago.
> Since then I've built a VNA. Sure, the MFJ259 tuned filters were not as
> sharply tuned as could be accomplished with the VNA, but they still
> functioned well in the high power RTTY SO2R environment.
>
> The cost per filter can be quite inexpensive if you make them yourself and
> limit the throughput power to 100 W max. Turns out the most expensive
> component(s) for each filter are the SO239 connectors. You can even
> eliminate a couple of the toroids per filter for the 10 - 20 m filters by
> using air coils for the input and output parallel circuits. The
> enclosures are made from aluminum flashing.
>
> So don't overlook fabricating your filters as the experience and cost
> savings are very worthwhile.
>
> 73,
> Mike, K4GMH
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Jerry Flanders <jeflanders@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> When I operated SO2R years ago I had bandswitching filters ahead of the
>> amps and homemade stubs after. I could operate anywhere except within 15-20
>> Khz of the second harmonics.
>>
>> 50 ohm coax is not required for the stubs - I was using free 75.
>>
>> Jerry W4UK
>>
>>
>> At 12:21 AM 3/20/2016, Jim W7RY wrote:
>>
>>> George Cutsogeorge, W2VJN's, book is really great for using tuned stubs
>>> (coax cable) for low notching out other bands for SO2R. I use on on my 80
>>> meter antenna to keep from getting into 40 meters.
>>> Something I cant do with a Dunstar filter between the exciter and
>>> amplifier.
>>>
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Jim W7RY
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Bill Turner
>>> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2016 8:15 PM
>>> To: RTTY Reflector
>>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] bandpass filters
>>>
>>> Bandpass filters at the 1500 watt level are quite expensive - around
>>> $400 for each band. Do the math.
>>>
>>> If you want to save some money, you can build your own. Accompanying
>>> each ARRL Handbook is a CD which contains design software for high
>>> pass and low pass filters. By choosing the cutoff frequencies
>>> carefully and putting them in series, you could save a considerable
>>> amount of money.
>>>
>>> This particular software is especially useful because it uses standard
>>> value components. In fact that is the name of the program: SVC Filter
>>> Designer. Here's a hint: Each filter segment can be looked at as a
>>> parallel resonant circuit, i.e. a coil paralleled by two capacitors in
>>> series. You can use a grid dip meter to carefully adjust the coil to
>>> resonate at the frequency given by the standard equations for
>>> resonance. Do each filter segment separately, then connect them
>>> together. You can check the final result by sweeping it with an SWR
>>> meter while terminated into a dummy load or a real antenna.
>>>
>>> It is also available at this website: http://tonnesoftware.com/
>>> along with other filter design software and there may be others as
>>> well. It is well worth browsing around.
>>>
>>> 73, Bill W6WRT
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:03:08 -0700
> From: "Dave Hachadorian" <k6ll.dave@gmail.com>
> To: "reflector RTTY" <rtty@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Skimmer
> Message-ID: <8D7199C32B654CCEA9CD3F7A14078F1B@Toshiba>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> In my experience, the VE3NEA RTTY Skimmers are much improved
> lately on spotting stations that are actually calling CQ. I
> always connect to a CC-Cluster node, using CC-user Software,
> which seamlessly feeds N1MM Logger. I think the CC Clusters do
> some filtering to validate spots from multiple skimmers. My
> usual nodes are VE7CC-1 or AE5E-2.
>
> RTTY Skimmers have definitely come of age in the past 12 months.
> Many thanks to all those who are feeding the RBN, both CW and
> RTTY!
>
> Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
> Yuma, AZ
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pcooper
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 10:31 AM
> To: Al Kozakiewicz
> Cc: rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Skimmer
>
> Al AB2ZY and the group,
>
> I have local access to a skimmer cluster as well as a normal
> cluster.
> Both run simultaneously here in the shack 24/7. Looking at the
> skimmer cluster, I repeatedly see spots for stations that are
> responding to a CQ call, rather than calling CQ themselves.
>
> I have tried using the skimmer cluster in a contest, and that
> simply clogs up the bandmap with loads of spots that aren't
> calling CQ.
> I know the skimmer clusters are supposed to be intelligent and
> only spots calls who are sending CQ, but I see far more spots for
> those that aren't.
>
> Where cluster access is allowed in a contest, I will use the
> normal cluster, as I mostly use it to gauge whether another band
> is open, or worth trying. If there is some juicy DX spotted, I
> may well try for them, depending on the situation, but generally,
> if that juicy DX has just been spotted, it's usually pointless
> trying, as loads of others will already be there.
> This was evident during the BARTG contest at the weekend, as I
> came across FP/KV1J calling CQ on 20m, so I tried to get in, but
> he had a mini pile-up going. I did try a couple of times more,
> but then he got spotted, and I gave up, as it just got silly,
> with callers shouting over each other and the exchange in
> progress.
> Happily came across him again later, and got in first shout. It
> was similar with HP3/VY2SS.
>
> That's just my own view of things.....
>
> 73 de Phil GU0SUP
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RTTY Digest, Vol 159, Issue 39
> *************************************
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|