[RTTY] Topband: 160m in RTTY Contests

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> WAS on 160 meter RTTY is not impossible. It is a challenge. 
> Working all 50 states on 160 meters from a city lot is not 
> impossible. 

While it is certainly possible to make QSOs using RTTY on 
160 meters, it is far from optimum given the constant 
multipath conditions and poor SNR that exists on the band. 
It would certainly be possible to make QSOs on 160 using 
spark but nobody would do that.  

Trying to "force" QSOs - even a contest - using  poorly chosen 
mode is neither "good amateur practice" or "gentlemanly." 

If you want to use digital modes on 160 meters, find a 
mode that works well in low SNR, multipath conditions and 
in a restricted bandwidth.  

> Apparently the pioneering spirited, inquisitive minds, and 
> experimenters have all died off with the generations of 
> hams prior to us.

What is pioneering or inquisitive in trying to force QSOs 
using a mode not suited to the frequencies in use?  Everyone 
would be better served to use that pioneering inquisitiveness 
to develop and promote a mode suited to medium wave conditions. 
given that the primary propagation issue on 160 is multipath, 
one could even postulate that 22 baud 22 Hz shift FSK would 
provide an order of magnitude improvement over 45.45 baud 
170Hz shift with about 20% of the bandwidth. 

73, 

   ... Joe, W4TV 
  




> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtty-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert Chudek - K0RC
> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 11:42 PM
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Topband: 160m in RTTY Contests
> 
> 
> I am consistently amazed by the negative comments why a 160 
> meter RTTY 
> contest would be a "bad thing". If we had only listened to 
> the nay-sayers in 
> the past we would still be using spark. In the early days, 
> the entire MF and 
> above radio spectrum was dismissed as a "wasteland" with no 
> particular 
> value. And since when has 160 meters been an exclusive use 
> band for CW, or 
> Phone, or bulletins, or rag-chewing?
> 
> Apparently the pioneering spirited, inquisitive minds, and 
> experimenters 
> have all died off with the generations of hams prior to us. A pity.
> 
> WAS on 160 meter RTTY is not impossible. It is a challenge. 
> Working all 50 
> states on 160 meters from a city lot is not impossible. It is 
> a challenge. I 
> did it on CW and I didn't even have a 160 meter antenna! 
> There is absolutely 
> no reason why it cannot be done on RTTY as well.
> 
> My original comments regarding adding 160 meter RTTY to the 
> contest line up 
> are still valid. But I will clarify that I believe an 
> exclusive single band 
> event would be the optimum "configuration" to add a new 
> challenge for the 
> RTTY community to enjoy.
> 
> 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
>