[RTTY] Lack of RTTY on 40 and 80 Meters

[Robert Chudek - K0RC]

I have to agree with Tom, W7WHY regarding 160m operation. But as Bill, 
W6WRT mentioned, it might be better to start off as a single-band event.

The Minnesota Wireless Association has an internal three-team 
competition each contest season. One of the 11 contests where members 
accumulate team scores is the ARRL 160 meter contest. "Team Hennepin" is 
basically the areas surrounding the metropolitan area of Minneapolis, St 
Paul, and suburbs, generically know as "The Twin Cities". As you might 
imagine, these contesters are pretty much 'city lot' stations with the 
usual space limitations.

The last two seasons, Team Hennepin has posted the second highest score 
in the club during the ARRL 160 meter contest. They load up rain 
gutters, 80 meter dipoles as Tom suggested, or virtually anything that 
will conduct electricity! After the contest the reflector is buzzing 
with stories that they had no idea they could make contacts on 160 
meters with such a poor antenna. The main theme is that they had fun and 
learned a few things along the way, trying a new band they may have not 
operated before.

Personally I have not pursued RTTY / Digital activity on 160m. I have a 
few states confirmed. I certainly would jump into a contest to expand my 
numbers and go for 160m Digital WAS if an organized event was created. 
With the tipsy situation with CQ at the moment, I don't know that they 
would have the resources to take on another event. But certainly 
something could be started by a small group of individuals... try it for 
a couple years... and if it catches on, offer it to a 'real' contest 
management team. That's pretty much how the High Speed RTTY contest was 
launched and is now managed by BARTG.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 3/25/2014 11:45 AM, Tom Osborne wrote:
>
>> REPLY:
>>
>> i think you'll find some pretty strong resistance to that because of the
>> antenna and lot size situation you mentioned. Most stations, even on
>> city lots, can put up decent antennas for 80 meters and higher, but 160
>> presents a problem and the really competitive stations are not going to
>> want to be at a disadvantage just because of limited space.
>>
>> So, how about a 160 meter RTTY contest? There are already separate CW
>> and SSB contests for 160, so why not RTTY?
>>
>> CQ magazine, are you listening?
>>
>> 73, Bill W6WRT
>
> Hi Bill
>
> I'd have to disagree on that one.  If someone wants to get an antenna 
> for 160, they can do it.  I have seen designs for 160 antennas that 
> are only 33 feet tall.  One was in NCJ not too long ago using one of 
> those 33 foot telescoping fiberglass masts..
>
> True - they are not the same as a 4-square or inverted 'L', but you 
> can get on the air and work a lot of stations.
>
> If you have an 80 or 40 meter dipole you can tie the center and shield 
> together and make a top loaded vertical.
>
> I think if you included 160, a lot of folks would get something up.  
> It might be nice not to have to fight all the big gun stations who 
> don't want to do 160 because they would  be at a 'disadvantage.'  It 
> would be their choice whether to operate 160 or not.73
>
> Tom W7WHY
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>