[RTTY] RTTY Digest, Vol 134, Issue 19

Wed Feb 5 18:10:46 EST 2014

But what if I can't listen on two frequencies at the same time?

___________________
Stan Zawrotny, K4SBZ
(850) 893-5003 (h) (850) 590-6617 (m)
K4SBZ.Stan at Gmail.com

Real radio bounces off the sky.

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:38 PM, <rtty-request at contesting.com> wrote:

> Send RTTY mailing list submissions to
>         rtty at contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         rtty-request at contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         rtty-owner at contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RTTY digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. "New procedure" (Jacques Frilley)
>    2. Re: SO2R (Tom Osborne)
>    3. Re: Change in pileup procedure? (Steve IK4WMH)
>    4. Re: Change in pileup procedure? (Kai)
>    5. Re: Change in pileup procedure? (Steve IK4WMH)
>    6. Re: Change in pileup procedure? (Kok Chen)
>    7. Re: Change in pileup procedure? (John Becker)
>    8. Re: Change in pileup procedure? (Bill Turner)
>    9. Re: Change in pileup procedure? (Bill Turner)
>   10. Re: Change in pileup procedure? (Bill Turner)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Jacques Frilley" <jacques.frilley at noos.fr>
> To: "RTTY reflector" <rtty at contesting.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 19:09:14 +0100
> Subject: [RTTY] "New procedure"
> I completely agree with the comments given by N8PS. The so-called "new
> procedure"which is near the "Russian roulette" approach does not make any
> sense for me. It avoid any intelligent practice of  DX by those and
> specially little pistols who works the rare one with eyes on 2 computers
> screens. One screen showing the best computed optimal propagation
> opportunity, the second screen showing the display of an SDR-driven
> spectrum analyser such as SpectraView or any other appropriate software.
> The right instant and the right small window in the split, that is fun and
> the only
> fun which I enjoy after 55 years of practice which often leads to "first
> call in the log". I would make an analogy with fishing.
> For me the "new procedure" is equivalent to "industrial trawling" and the
> clever way of DXing is equivalent to "trout fly fishing".
> The second one is far beyond compare.
> Lets continue to have fun despite the problems encountered. Lids, cops and
> frustrated or just insane QRMers are just human beings and anything can
> happen in human behaviour.
> 73 to all from Jim F2LZ
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Sussman" <psussman at pactor.com>
> To: "Steve" <ik4wmh at virgilio.it>
> Cc: <rtty at contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 5:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Change in pileup procedure?
>
>
> > Steve makes a good point.
> >
> > The new proposal does have a distinct disadvantage. The current
> > 'split' operation supposedly allows the DX station to answer
> > without being 'overrun' by continual calls. Essentially the idea
> > is the callers 'stop calling' when the DX station is working
> > someone. This allows the DX to elicit the next call(s).
> >
> > Under the proposed plan, the callers have no idea when the DX
> > is talking or listening. They are instead randomly transmitting
> > on random UP frequencies without any idea where the DX is actually
> > working. The announced advantage is there is no jamming of the DX
> > station nor are there any 'split workers.'
> >
> > Without a periodic return to the original calling frequency there
> > can be no coordination. Under that line of thought, why should the
> > DX ever return to any frequency. Rather he should just keep working
> > and moving.(Hunt and pounce in reverse you might say)
> >
> > This causes calling stations to keep calling over and over without
> > vacating -- thus keeping multiple frequencies occupied with callers
> > (unless they are worked in which case they would be immediately
> > replaced). In short, there could be no synchronization with the
> > operating pattern of the DX station.
> >
> > Regarding QSOs in progress in the UP range, there would be direct
> > contact with the continually callers ("This frequency is in use")
> > causing continual migration.
> >
> > It is only replacing one type of QRM with another. Under the
> > proposal however, more stations are actually transmitting at the
> > same time (no pausing) out of sequence with each other.
> >
> > Oh well - QRM is QRM
> >
> > 73 de Phil - N8PS
> >
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Tom Osborne <w7why at frontier.com>
> To: RTTY <rtty at contesting.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:13:24 -0800
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] SO2R
>
>  Well, my question is simple and straight-forward: let's suppose I am
>> running on 10 meters with radio A and I have a multiplier on radio B. Can
>> I
>> click and F key of radio B while calling CQ on radio A? Will it be on the
>> air after the CQ or I have to wait till the CQ ends to press the F key?
>>
>
> Hi Seba
>
> Why would you want to do this?
>
> Suppose you can call CQ and hit a key on the other radio.  What happens if
> someone answers your CQ and the station you called on the other radio also
> answers your call?
>
>
> Which one are you going to work and which one are you going to make wait?
>  73
> Tom W7WHY
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Steve IK4WMH <ik4wmh at virgilio.it>
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 19:33:35 +0100
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Change in pileup procedure?
> Hello Bill,
>
> Wednesday, February 5, 2014, 6:21:49 PM, you wrote:
>
> BT> I am open to other suggestions. There has got to be a better way
> BT> than what we are doing now.
>
> I am not sure there is.
>
> I have always used the split method since I was licensed in mid 90s, I
> guess if there was a better way someone in the past had already
> proposed it.
>
> BT> What do you suggest?
>
> If I was at the DXpedition end I would do the following:
>
> 1. I would check my calling frequency from time to time for traces of
> intentional QRM, probably the ones that have big signals to cover the
> DX signal have a signal strong enough to be heard at the DX place;
>
> 2. If any QRM is heard on frequency then I would move a few hundred
> Hz's up or down to make myself heard again, the smartest guys will
> find me and work me easily;
>
> 3. Go to point #1...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Steve IK4WMH
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Kai <k.siwiak at ieee.org>
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 13:58:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Change in pileup procedure?
> Pardon, but what does "QYF" stand for?
>
>
>
> On 2/5/2014 12:30 PM, Bill Turner wrote:
>
>> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:          (may be snipped)
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I think QYF is much more civilized. Isn't it worth a try? I'm open to
>> better suggestions.
>>
>> 73, Bill W6WRT
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Steve IK4WMH <ik4wmh at virgilio.it>
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 20:25:22 +0100
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Change in pileup procedure?
> Hello Kai,
>
> Wednesday, February 5, 2014, 7:58:57 PM, you wrote:
>
> K> Pardon, but what does "QYF" stand for?
>
> QYF     Take over traffic instead of my station.
>
>
> You can find the complete code here:
>
> http://www.astrosol.ch/downloads/qzcodescis.doc
>
>
>
>
> Steve IK4WMH
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Kok Chen <chen at mac.com>
> To: k.siwiak at ieee.org
> Cc: rtty at contesting.com
> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 11:26:47 -0800
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Change in pileup procedure?
>
> On Feb 5, 2014, at 10:58 AM, Kai wrote:
>
> > Pardon, but what does "QYF" stand for?
>
> Bill made it up -- I think it stands for Q Your Frequency.  Method
> definitely won't work well for 100 watts/vertical guys like me.
>
> Vy 73
> Chen
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: John Becker <w0jab at big-river.net>
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 13:35:35 -0600
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Change in pileup procedure?
>
> On 2/5/2014 12:58 PM, Kai wrote:
>
>> Pardon, but what does "QYF" stand for?
>>
>>  Its like QLF only different.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Bill Turner <dezrat1242 at wildblue.net>
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 12:27:29 -0800
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Change in pileup procedure?
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:          (may be snipped)
>
> On 2/5/2014 10:58 AM, Kai wrote:
>
>> Pardon, but what does "QYF" stand for?
>>
>
> REPLY:
>
> YF = Your Frequency, which is where I (the DX) will call you.
>
> 73, Bill W6WRT
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Bill Turner <dezrat1242 at wildblue.net>
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 12:31:50 -0800
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Change in pileup procedure?
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:          (may be snipped)
>
> On 2/5/2014 11:25 AM, Steve IK4WMH wrote:
>
>> QYF     Take over traffic instead of my station.
>>
>>
>> You can find the complete code here:
>>
>> http://www.astrosol.ch/downloads/qzcodescis.doc
>>
>
> REPLY:
>
> You have found a more complete list than I had. QYF appears to be taken by
> the navy, but all the amateur radio lists I have found do not have it. I
> prefer it because it is more or less self-explanatory. YF = Your Frequency.
>
> 73, Bill W6WRT
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Bill Turner <dezrat1242 at wildblue.net>
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 12:38:08 -0800
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Change in pileup procedure?
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:          (may be snipped)
>
> On 2/5/2014 11:26 AM, Kok Chen wrote:
>
>> Method definitely won't work well for 100 watts/vertical guys like me.
>>
>> Vy 73
>> Chen
>>
>
> REPLY:
>
> I don't understand. If you're hearing him on his CQ frequency, you will
> hear him on your own frequency as long as your frequency is reasonably
> clear. If he can't hear you working split, he won't hear you QYF either.
>
> What am I missing?
>
> 73, Bill W6WRT
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>