[RTTY] 160m in RTTY Contests

[Bill, W6WRT]

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:37:22 -0600, Jim Reisert AD1C <jjreisert at alum.mit.edu>
wrote:

>The band is too narrow.

200 kHz is too narrow?
>
>The harm it does to 160 regulars far outweighs any possible benefit to
>RTTY contesters.

I operate regularly in the ARRL-recommended 1800-1810 segment. I have heard a
non-digital signal there only once in a non-contest period. If there was a
dedicated 160 meter RTTY contest, I doubt if the 'regulars' would even notice.
>
>There are propagation "features" which distort RTTY signals on the low
>bands.  80 is tough, 160 is tougher.  I'm sure Kok Chen can explain.

Granted, you probably won't be working the other side of the earth on 160 RTTY,
but hams love a challenge, don't they? I have 25 states worked on 160 RTTY and
would love to get 'em all. To the best of my knowledge, no one has WAS on 160
RTTY yet. Who will be first?
>
>160 meter antenna systems are typically narrow-band.  Losses build up
>quickly when moving away from the resonant frequency.  People who run a
>KW on RTTY on 160 could suffer antenna damage.

Antennas are easily re-tuned for 160 meters, either with a loading coil or by
clipping on a couple feet of wire. And SWR losses are lowest on 160 of all bands
anyway. 

73, Bill W6WRT