[CQ-Contest] NAQP CW - Jan 8-9

Wed Dec 15 19:38:40 PST 2010

On 80m I don't think the international sub-bands play very much of a part
for most of the U.S., rather it's the NA to NA QSO's and low-power CW
stations competing for spectrum with high-power RTTY that is the rub.  If
RTTY stayed mainly above 3570 that would be fine but we know when things get
crowded, as it surely will on 80m this time of year, stations will seek the
open spaces.  That means there will likely be RTTY as far down as 3530 or
lower.

73, Ted W4NZ

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Muns [mailto:w0yk at msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10:20 PM
To: 'Ted Bryant'
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] NAQP CW - Jan 8-9

Yes, but less so.  While basically the same amount of spectrum, the sub-band
usage is different.  The JA RTTY sub-band is 3520-3525, but for NA
propagation, that will be long after NAQP is over.  The rest of the world
that NA can readily hear on 80 meters, i.e., NA and EU, will be above 3570.

The only significant conflict is on 40 meters where EU operates as low as
7030, sometimes lower.  Moreover, RTTY contesters will be running in that
area long before NAQP gets to 40.  The NA stations RTTY stations in those
QSOs will be the most bothersome to NAQP.  If the contesting world can
survive a few hours on that Saturday evening, it won't be an issue again
until 2022, if then.

Ed - W0YK

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ted Bryant
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 December, 2010 18:42
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP CW - Jan 8-9
>
> I think 40m is not the only problem.  Isn't there a similar
> conflict between RTTY and CW on 80m?  It's the same amount of
> spectrum.
>
> 73, Ted W4NZ
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of
> Richard F DiDonna NN3W
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 5:26 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Cc: Chris Plumblee
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP CW - Jan 8-9
>
>
> I tend to agree. The amount of QRM from RTTY during NAQP CW
> is significant.
> As WF3C notes, RTTY contesting is getting more popular each
> year.  Looking at the ARRL RR spots, there was RTTY activity
> as low as 7.033 KHz.
>
> We have run-ins with RTTY and PSK on 40 meters all the time
> during the NCCC sprints.
>
> Pressing on with the NAQP CW like its no big deal is bad policy.
>
> 73 Rich NN3W
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Plumblee" <chris.plumblee at gmail.com>
> To: <bhorn at hornucopia.com>; <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP CW - Jan 8-9
>
>
> > Bruce,
> >
> > I'll offer the other side of the coin for argument's sake,
> because I
> > think there is more to the potential conflict between the
> two contests
> > in question than your email makes it appear.
> >
> > First, as to your point that, in 2000 and 2005 the CW NAQP and RTTY
> > Roundup were held on the same weekend relatively
> harmoniously, I would
> > point out that RTTY contesting has grown explosively in the
> last 5-6
> > years. In fact, in 2005 the high score for RU was posted by
> P43P with
> > just over 2,000 QSOs.
> > In 2010 P49X logged nearly 3,000 QSOs to win the contest. In 2005
> > there were
> > 922 stations submitting logs to the ARRL for the Roundup. In 2010
> > there were 1,592. It seems to me that the bandwidth that
> RTTY Roundup
> > will require, and therefore the potential for interference
> between the
> > participants in the two contests, may be considerably more in 2011
> > than it was in 2005.
> >
> > Secondly, I would not support abandoning the traditional
> 2nd weekend
> > in January for the NAQP, but I would propose, in years
> where there is
> > a conflict between Roundup and the NAQP CW, switching the
> January NAQP
> > CW and NAQP SSB weekends. Interference between NAQP SSB and RTTY
> > Roundup operations would be virtually nil, and the NAQP CW
> would share
> > the weekend with the Hungarian DX Contest and the Feld Hell Sprint,
> > which seems preferable to one of the two largest RTTY DX
> contests on
> > the calendar.
> >
> > Though I acknowledge that it will be difficult to get the
> word out to
> > all potential ops about the switch, it seems shortsighted to just
> > leave things the way they are and hope that interference is
> minimal.
> > NAQP ops, who by rule will be running 100w or less, will endure an
> > awful lot of disruptive QRM, accidental though it may be,
> from DX and
> > Stateside RTTY ops running 1.5kw.
> >
> > All totals above are from the ARRL Results Database.
> >
> > 73,
> > Chris WF3C
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 01:06:21 -0600 (CST)
> > From: Bruce Horn <bhorn at hornucopia.com>
> > Subject: [CQ-Contest] NAQP CW - Jan 8-9
> > To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> > Message-ID:
> >       <580964460.65924.1292310381906.JavaMail.root at mail-3.01.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I know there's been discussions on some of the reflectors regarding
> > the weekend conflict between the NAQP CW and ARRL RTTY Roundup
> > contests in January.
> >
> > I've elected to not change the historic weekend of the NAQP
> CW contest.
> > When
> > the ARRL moved the RTTY Roundup to the NAQP CW weekend in
> the past in
> > 2000 and 2005, the CW contest was held as scheduled. My review of
> > reflector comments posted at that time did not reveal a serious
> > disruption to NAQP CW.
> > Because of the large number of NAQP participants who do not
> frequent
> > the contest reflector and to discourage other contests from
> moving to
> > the second weekend in January, I believe it's important to maintain
> > the predictable date of the contest. I'm hopeful that the
> contesters
> > in the two contests can cooperate to minimize the degree of overlap
> > during the first 12 hours of the Roundup.
> >
> > I realize this decision will inconvenience those who would like to
> > make a serious effort in both contests, but the good news
> is that it
> > will be 2022 before the next potential overlap.
> >
> > The rules on the NCJ web site have been updated.
> >
> > 73 de Bruce, WA7BNM   (bhorn at hornucopia.com)
> > Manager, NAQP CW/SSB Contests
> >
> > --
> > Chris Plumblee
> > 407.494.5155
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>