IMO, RTTY operating practices don't need to change, the skimmer software
paradigm does.
In theoretical terms, the sampling interval needs to be longer. Instead of
trying to deduce who is running from a single (or very few) decoded
transmission(s), "average" the result over a longer period of time and who is
running the frequency can then be determined with a higher degree of
probability. Of course, you will have to wait longer for a result, but there
is always a tradeoff between error rate and speed.
Al
AB2ZY
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jurgen Geldhof
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 1:30 PM
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ
Hi,
same goes for me, the trailing CQ (or QRZ) makes me win some time when S&Ping.
Maybe we need a new Q-code? :-)
Op 24/03/2016 om 22:32 schreef Mark n2qt:
> I run low power in the contests, and as such most of my contacts are
> s/p. With the slower cadence of a rtty contest CQ, I really like the
> trailing CQ, so I can decide if the station is suitable for me to call
> without waiting through another sequence.
>
> Mark. N2QT
>
>> On Mar 24, 2016, at 5:04 PM, Dave Hachadorian <k6ll.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm all in favor of dropping the trailing CQ.
>>
>> In fact, I made the same proposal one year ago:
>> http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/RTTY/2015-02/msg00083.html
>>
>> My proposal received little support at the time, but maybe this time
>> we can start putting an end to this idiosyncratic RTTY practice.
>>
>> Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
>> Yuma, AZ
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Ed Muns
>> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 1:35 PM
>> To: 'RTTY Reflector'
>> Subject: [RTTY] Trailing CQ
>>
>> The rationale for a trailing 'CQ' in CQ and TU messages is no more
>> true for RTTY than CW. CW contesting has decades of existence proof
>> that such a trailing CQ is not needed, i.e., the rationale is flawed.
>>
>> The only valid reason for the trailing 'CQ' in RTTY messages is that
>> it has
>> (unnecessarily) been done that way for many years now. RTTY
>> contesters expect it and can be confused if it isn't there.
>>
>> The advent of RTTY Skimmer offers a good reason to stop this
>> practice, but changing such an entrenched technique will take
>> concerted effort by RTTY contesters over a long period of time.
>> However, the longer we wait, the longer it will take to accomplish.
>>
>> Why don't we drop 'CQ' from the end of our messages now and get on
>> with the transition?
>>
>> Ed W0YK
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
>
> 73
>
>
> Jurgen Geldhof
> ON5MF / OQ6A
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> www.on5mf.be <http://www.on5mf.be> www.geldhofhout.be
> <http://www.geldhofhout.be>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
_______________________________________________
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
|