[RTTY] The Case for QYF (was We Need a New Strategy)

[Bill Turner]

Chen has good points below, but there are good counter-points too. I call this style of operating QYF, meaning "answer my CQ on a different frequency and I will work you there".  YF = Your Frequency


1. Chen says not everyone has two receivers. Well, you don't need two receivers, just VFO A and VFO B. Use VFO A on his CQ frequency and call him (and listen for him) on VFO B. This is NOT split - just simplex on VFO B and you can do it even with ancient equipment without dual VFOs. Just turn the knob as needed. 


2. Chen worries that you don't know when to stop calling. You stop calling when he works you or you give up. Just like now.


3.  One HUGE advantage to operating QYF is it encourages everyone to find a clear frequency to call the DX instead of piling up on the frequency of the last station. Think about this from the DX point of view - everyone will be spread out instead of a hundred stations on one frequency!  Because you are listening on your own transmit frequency, you are MUCH less likely to QRM another station and vice versa. The way it is now, most stations call blindly because they are not listening on their own frequency. That would change.


4. But perhaps the BIGGEST advantage is that QYF foils the jammers and the Kilocycle Kops. They would have no idea where the DX is actually operating because it changes with every QSO. By the time the jammer finds the QSO frequency, the QSO is over and the DX is on another frequency.  Jamming the DX's CQ frequency is pointless because 99% of the time nobody is listening there and jamming there does not interfere with actual QSOs. When the pile starts to thin out, the DX goes back to the CQ frequency and sends a short CQ CQ QYF QYF de X1XXX K and then he's gone again. 


5.  Anything is better than the mess we have now.   :-)

Comments?


73, Bill W6WRT




>________________________________
> From: Kok Chen <chen at mac.com>
>To: RTTYReflector <rtty at contesting.com> 
>Cc: Bill Turner <dezrat1242 at yahoo.com> 
>Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 11:18 PM
>Subject: Re: [RTTY] Need a better strategy
> 
>
>On May 12, 2012, at 10:23 PM, Bill Turner wrote:
>
>> You know, that's not a bad idea. 
>> The DX calls CQ on one frequency, 14080, but says he will answer you on your frequency (but NOT this one). He would hop around working stations on their frequency simplex until the pileup thins out, then call CQ on 14080 again. 
>
>
>Only problem is that many people don't have two receivers, or even if they do, they don't use two decoders when operating RTTY.  You will need to listen to both 14080 and your own frequency to be efficient.
>
>You also have no idea when to stop calling (OK, so some people don't stop calling anyway, today :-).  
>
>I am afraid the pile is just going to be more messy since no one will be shutting up.  At least today, the good ops would clam up when the DX starts sending an exchange.  The JAs used to be religious with clamming up, even if the DX is replying with one character off from their own call sign, but I notice that in the past couple of years, they too also picked up the bad habit of not shutting up after the DX has sent an exhange to someone else.  It used to be a JA pileup was a sight to behold on a waterfall -- suddenly the noise floor drops to the point where you can see a solidarity signal responding to the DX. 
>
>The people that responds even when they are not being called will probably continue to do so with the proposed scheme -- lets say A and B both call the DX at or close to the same frequency.  The DX answers station A, but Mr. Lid, station B hears the DX sending an exchange, and still barges in just like he does today.  Or Mr. Lid keeps calling and never comes up for air, thus covering up the DX that is trying to respond to station A.  I.e., nothings changed.
>
>Not only that, a strong station with keyclicks a few hundred Hz away will not hear the DX and will keep calling.  Those keyclicks could cover up a weak DX station so you can't hear the DX come back to you.
>
>One of the reasons to use split is to have decent guard band away from the pile so that the DX exchanges do not have to compete with the noise floor of the pile.
>
>I still believe that the best thing is for the DX to thin the pile as quickly as possible.  Using agile receive is certainly one way to help do it.  As I was watching the 7O6T pile today, I cannot imagine a skimmer to be anywhere close to 100% efficient.  But a skimmer should still be able to pick up at least ONE clear callsign within a 20 kHz bandwidth within a couple of seconds.  
>
>Now, the weak stations might think that a skimmer is unfair since it will likely favor a stronger station (think FM capture effect), but it will remove the strong ones rather quickly so the DX can start working on the weak ones.  Everybody wins and the DXpedition can brag about how many more stations they have worked.
>
>73
>Chen, W7AY
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>RTTY mailing list
>RTTY at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
>