[RTTY] Re: 160 RTTY Contesting

Sun Jan 2 10:09:46 EST 2005

Floyd et all,
I'm not formulating a plan of attack "so to speak" concerning my suggestions 
for RTTY contesting on 160 meters and therefore have no "hell bent agenda".
Often times when someone accuses another of something,  that someone is 
subconsciously admitting his own hell bent agenda.

Bottom line though is that if enough RTTY'ers besides me want to do some 160 
RTTY contesting then it will come to pass., if not then it won't. Looking at 
the
31 direct emails that I've received voicing support for 160 meter RTTY 
contesting versus the one against it "from you", I think it may eventually 
come to pass.

BTW I already participate in PSK31 contesting on 160 meters and it hasn't 
wrecked the band as you fear would happen. In the PSK31 contests everyone 
has a clean and narrow signal and are very polite.

Anyway as I said in my previous post let's agree to disagree on the issue as 
gentlemen and still be friends. Therefore I'm opting out on any further 
discussion of the 160 RTTY contesting thread.

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Floyd Sense" <fsense at copper.net>
To: "Thomas Giella KN4LF" <kn4lf at tampabay.rr.com>; "a TARA RTTY eGroup" 
<RTTY-TARA at yahoogroups.com>; "a RTTY Reflector" <rtty at contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 8:03 AM
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
>>
>
> 