[RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting

Sun Jan 2 09:48:47 EST 2005

As an occasional, casual RTTY contester who also enjoys DXing on 160 meters,
I'd prefer not to have RTTY contests there.  160 is the most challenging
band below 30 MHz due to the propagation, which requires extraordinary
patience, operating skill, excellent receivers, and optimized transmitting
and receiving antennas.

RTTY is fun, but I think that a RTTY contest on 160 is just inappropriate.
We know how a CW contest extends way up into the portions of the bands
generally used for RTTY, and we know the opposite is true during RTTY
contests.  I think a RTTY contest would go well above 1810, the upper limit
for digital modes in the ARRL band plan
(http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html).

Local signals on 160 can be so extremely strong that those DXers not using
Orions with narrow roofing filters will be affected even if they're several
kHz from the strong RTTY locals.  And with the 100% duty cycle when
transmitting RTTY, our (presumed) 1500 watts is not exactly
neighbor-friendly.

We have so many contests available now, from short ones to 48-hours ones,
from ones sponsored by obscure clubs and societies to those sponsored by CQ
and the national societies, I find it hard to appreciate the need for yet
another contest, especially one on such a special band.  Want to try a
different band, why not use 17 meters?  Couldn't 30 be used too?

As for insulting CW operators on 160, I think it's very inappropriate.  CW
is used for 160 DXing because it's the most effective mode.  Calling the CW
ops "dinosaurs" is unacceptable.  I very much admire great CW ops and wish I
had spent more time trying to be their equal.  RTTY is fun, and I do it
because I was bored chasing new countries on CW and phone.  The practices
used on RTTY are similar to those on CW and phone, but let's be honest about
the skill required to program memories and press a sequence of keys to
operate a RTTY contest.  It can be learned a lot quicker than it takes one
to be proficient at 30-50 wpm on CW.  Those few who the high-speed code
copying contests at the conventions are the same ones who win the CW
contests.  Most have spent decades honing their skills.

This is just my opinion, but I think that RTTY ops' deciding to invade a
unique band without the involvement of the 160 meter key players (no pun
intended) is arrogant and a mistake.

Jim N7US

-----Original Message-----
From: rtty-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On
Behalf Of Floyd Sense
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 6:03 AM
To: Thomas Giella KN4LF; a TARA RTTY eGroup; a RTTY Reflector
Subject: Re: [RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting

Tom - it's clear from your comments that you have an agenda and are 
hell-bent on imposing your view of how 160 operations ought to be carried 
out.  You're making a mistake and I hope that other RTTY operators who want 
to use 160 meters won't be drawn into your folly.

K8AC

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Giella KN4LF" <kn4lf at tampabay.rr.com>
To: "a TARA RTTY eGroup" <RTTY-TARA at yahoogroups.com>; "a RTTY Reflector" 
<rtty at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting

> Floyd et all,
>
> Happy New Year 2005 to all!
>
> Whether we are talking "regions" or countries/entities the end result is 
> the same, differing international band allocations. Yes I propose an 
> international RTTY contest on 160 and/or inclusion of 160 meters in all 
> established RTTY contests. CW and SSB contesters get by with the 
> conflicting band allocation issue and so can we RTTY'ers.
>
> Yes I agree with your observations about the poor behavior of SSB etc. 
> contesters on other bands but RTTY and 160 meter contesters are a 
> different breed than the rest of the cabal.
>
> Yes I also agree that 160 meters is much busier now compared to 30 years 
> ago when the LORAN A stuff was going on. But at the same time it is much 
> less active than just 5-10 years ago. Every DXer in the 1845 kc Florida 
> group has observed the same trend. It's not a propagation issue as I know 
> a little about propagation http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm , it's more an 
> issue of an exponential increase in silent keys, CCR antenna issues and 
> attraction to the Internet.
>
> There exists a small sociopathic group of CW only on 160 meter dinosaur 
> mentality operators that want the band to stay under utilized and 
> therefore a sort QRM free semi private playground or gated community for 
> their single pursuit of CW operation. I on the other hand support 
> increased use of 160 meters to include all existing modes, while providing

> protection of narrow bandwidth modes from wide bandwidth modes.
>
> As far as DX windows go, these gentleman's agreements no longer exist on 
> 160 meters, thanks to the recent ARRL declaration stemming from the ARRL 
> 160 meter Ad Hoc Committee recommendations.
>
> In any event let's agree to disagree on the issue as gentlemen and still 
> be friends.
>
> 73,
> Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF
> Retired Space & Atmospheric Weather Forecaster
> Plant City, FL, USA
> Grid Square EL87WX
> Lat & Long 27 58 33.6397 N 82 09 52.4052 W
> kn4lf at arrl.net
>
> KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio History: http://www.kn4lf.com/index.htm
>
>> Tom - I didn't say anything about allocations differing amongst 
>> countries, I referred to REGIONS.  Here is the latest IARU band plan that

>> I could find, and it shows the recommended band usage in the three 
>> Regions.  As pointed out on the bottom of that page, these are only 
>> recommendations and are not binding upon any government.
>>
>> http://www.iaru-r2.org/hf_e.htm
>>
>> I assume that any contest you would propose would be international in 
>> nature and not just for USA or Region 2 stations.  Region 1 stations who 
>> are interested in being good radio citizens would be restricted to 
>> 1838-1842 KHz and wouldn't use the 1805-1815 segment.
>>
>> I understand your enthusiasm in thinking that contesters are "one cut 
>> above", but behavior observed in contests at this location simply don't 
>> bear that out.  Take a listen on 40 meter DX SSB frequencies during any 
>> of the DX contests and listen to all the USA stations who are calling the

>> CQing DX on their frequency, far below the bottom of the US band.  Note 
>> the callsigns and see how many of them are regular contesters.
>>
>> Perhaps propagation in Florida on 160 hasn't been very good the past few 
>> years, but the band here in NC is certainly not empty of QSOs (OK, don't 
>> hear any RTTY QSOs!).  Activity over the past 30 years has increased 
>> substantially, both from a US and a DX standpoint.  The one big 
>> difference I notice is that even the highly skilled contesters don't have

>> a clue what the DX window is for, and apparently think that is where the 
>> DX stations listen for them to call CQ.
>>
>> K8AC
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Thomas Giella KN4LF" <kn4lf at tampabay.rr.com>
>> To: "a TARA RTTY eGroup" <RTTY-TARA at yahoogroups.com>; "a RTTY Reflector" 
>> <rtty at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 1:06 PM
>> Subject: [RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting
>>
>>
>>> Floyd et all,
>>>
>>> Yes I also see wide AFSK RTTY and PSK31 signals on the HF bands. When I 
>>> politely mention same to the offending parties the response is usually 
>>> hostile or indifferent at best. But I don't think it would be an issue 
>>> amongst contesters as we are one cut above the rest in technical 
>>> knowledge and operating skill.
>>>
>>> The defacto digital operating band on 160 meters is 1805-1815 kc. But 
>>> just as 160 meter CW and SSB contesters spread out during a contest and 
>>> ragchewers find something else to do, the same would happen with an RTTY

>>> contest. Also as far as 160 meter band segment allocations differing 
>>> amongst countries, that happens on all the HF bands. You just make do.
>>>
>>> Compared to just 5-10 years ago the 160 meter band is virtually empty of

>>> QSO's, so an RTTY contest would be beneficial to the band as far as use 
>>> thereof.
>>>
>>> Just my .02!
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/2004
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/2004
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> 

_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty