[RTTY] RTTY Digest, Vol 159, Issue 43
Salvatore Irato
iw1ayd at gmail.com
Thu Mar 24 10:10:32 EDT 2016
Hi all.
I wouldn't ask QRZ at the end of TU:
I am free to take any other call, CQ, not just the caller I know that
is there but I am not sure of his call, QRZ.
The software MUST be done as to clever as it could be. The software
should be written to avoid pitfalls like this.
BTW how many "XY1XY TU IW1AYD CQ ZX1ZX ZX1ZX" instead of ...
"XY1XY TU IW1AYD CQ $#L
ZX1ZX ZX1ZX" ...
... there are?
Noise $#L and CR or CRLF well placed will reduce this case to be
counted on one hand, maybe two, world wide.
But usually this isn't. It seems that there is some leakage make
sounding signalling to be decoded even if those signals aren't
attached.
Examination is clearly done on a continuous string getting out from
the signal decoding. Like a zone/strip printout instead of a page
work. Usually software don't see that much on a string as humans do
with the same and, also, others strings nearby.
I have seen just GRITTY and N1MM+ going backward to carve out calls.
Still calls not string and thus complete sentences.
Accordingly to the general timing of RBN entries propagation waiting
some more time reassembling sentences and gaps in between sentences
will not destroy the RBN cluster entries propagation. Being late 5 to
8 seconds at the source is a more than relevant time to make sentences
and gaps recognition. But it's quite nothing having entries Time To
Live on a bandmap of 15/30 minutes.
I agree that attempting to make that sort of brain inside automatic
decoders is not a scope for every one. But nonetheless we need to
change ours macros accordingly to no brain at all.
On the other side, having QRZ instead of CQ, I would also like to read
"PLEASE COPY". This is a positive trailing edge atom string to the
following exchange: it ring a bell to be ready to get that 599 as
exchange IW1AYD 599 PLS CPY 599 599 IW1AYD ... :-)
Don't laugh, think that on the way to change ours habit in order to
accommodate decoder software glitches there is also this. Isn't?
An example ...
I am curios to read about habits to be changed when self driving cars
will hit our roads, hundred ans thousand of those versus millions or
human driven cars. We will have to change something all, measuring ten
to ten the numbers of self driving cars in different places where we
will transit ... one of those could be a curiosity, tenth/s of those
are a big change in a single carriageway one way road. Who will be who
on that case referring to us now?
73 de iw1ayd Salvo
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 2:32 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. Dayton Hamvention RTTY Contest Forum (Ed Muns)
> 2. Re: Contest this weekend (VE3FH)
> 3. Re: RTTY Skimmer (Pete Smith N4ZR)
> 4. Re: RTTY Skimmer (V Sidarau)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 20:36:13 -0700
> From: "Ed Muns" <ed at w0yk.com>
> To: <rtty at contesting.com>
> Subject: [RTTY] Dayton Hamvention RTTY Contest Forum
> Message-ID: <5BD5C6491F3646AD848BC49664A99FC2 at h81420t>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Here are the presentations scheduled for the RTTY Contest Forum at the
> Dayton Hamvention on Saturday, 21 May from 10:30-11:45am:
>
> Contest vs. DXpedition Operating, Craig Thompson K9CT
> Remote Contesting, Mark Aaker K6UFO
> Top Ten Tips, Ed Muns W0YK
>
> Two suggestions have been submitted for the last presentation. I'd love to
> be overwhelmed with a lot more, so let me know what you think.
>
> Ed W0YK
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 06:49:54 +0000 (UTC)
> From: VE3FH <ve3fh at yahoo.ca>
> To: RTTY Reflector <rtty at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Contest this weekend
> Message-ID:
> <974945017.68044.1458802194103.JavaMail.yahoo at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> That's exactly my approach Peter... if a contest has no category that appeals me I just don't play it, I have never asked a sponsor to alter the rules to fit my contesting preferences and I am not asking for that now, I was just making a comment about the "many" categories referred to in the original post.
>
> I'll just shut up now...
> 73,
> Julio VE3FH/K6
>
>
> From: Peter Laws <plaws0 at gmail.com>
> To: RTTY Reflector <rtty at contesting.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 11:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Contest this weekend
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:11 PM, VE3FH <ve3fh at yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>> I don't agree with that, at least in SWO, 400W puts much stronger signals than 100W. That's easy to notice by working British stations in the ARRL DX Contest.
>> And that's not the reason anyway, as I recall it the sponsor's justification is that they cannot enforce a power limit. I actually find the explanation rather peculiar considering the contest has single-op and multi-op categories but hey I drive on the right side of the road...
>
>
>
> I never understand this.? To my knowledge, no operators are required
> to participate in this or any other contest.? If the rules aren't to
> an operator's liking ... they shouldn't participate.? It's pretty
> simple.
>
>
> --
> Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 07:09:31 -0400
> From: Pete Smith N4ZR <n4zr at contesting.com>
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Skimmer
> Message-ID: <56F3CAEB.9030700 at contesting.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Sorry Don, but I do not know. I'm copying Alex, VE3NEA, the author of
> RTTY Skimmer Server. He can probably answer this, and he also needs to
> know about the need to add DN to the list of CQ tagging keywords.
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> Download the new N1MM Logger+ at
> <http://N1MM.hamdocs.com>. Check
> out the Reverse Beacon Network at
> <http://reversebeacon.net>, now
> spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
> For spots, please use your favorite
> "retail" DX cluster.
>
> On 3/23/2016 10:20 PM, Don Hill AA5AU wrote:
>> We've heard some good things in this thread. We heard from, I think it was
>> Dave K6LL, who believes the RTTY skimmer spots are getting better. And we've
>> heard from Pete, N4ZR, saying that by using "aggressive" validation, we get
>> better spot accuracy with only a small reduction in the number of spots.
>> This all seems good but we need all RTTY skimmer ops to use this aggressive
>> setting.
>>
>> I shied away from using RTTY skimmer spots after trying to use them on a
>> couple of occasions last year only to get slowed down by chasing spots of
>> S&P stations instead of run stations. I am going to try using skimmer spots
>> again during EA RTTY next weekend to see what improvements have been made. I
>> do realize the potential upside of RTTY skimmer spots.
>>
>> I do have one question. I understand that one of the biggest issues is that
>> RTTY contesters place "CQ" at the end of their CQ message (and it's for good
>> reason). Most of us use a single space at the end of that message. Would it
>> help if everyone who places CQ at the end of their CQ message, used two
>> spaces instead of one after that trailing "CQ"? If so, I'll start doing that
>> and advocate that others do it as well. Would it make a difference? Would we
>> get less S&P stations being spotted by RTTY skimmer?
>>
>> 73, Don AA5AU
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Pete Smith N4ZR
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 5:45 AM
>> To: rtty at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Skimmer
>>
>> Thanks for calling this out, Ian. I checked, and discovered that DF4UE is
>> running "minimal" validation. I'm sure this is an oversight on his part,
>> and have just sent an e-mail to him suggesting he adopt the recommended RBN
>> standards of "normal" validation on CW and "aggressive"
>> on RTTY. Recent tests confirmed that "aggressive" validation on RTTY results
>> in usefully better spot accuracy with only a small reduction in the raw
>> number of spots.
>>
>> 73, Pete N4ZR
>> Download the new N1MM Logger+ at
>> <http://N1MM.hamdocs.com>. Check
>> out the Reverse Beacon Network at
>> <http://reversebeacon.net>, now
>> spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
>> For spots, please use your favorite
>> "retail" DX cluster.
>>
>> On 3/23/2016 4:28 AM, Ian White wrote:
>>> K6LL wrote:
>>>> In my experience, the VE3NEA RTTY Skimmers are much improved lately
>>>> on spotting stations that are actually calling CQ. I always connect
>>>> to a CC-Cluster node, using CC-user Software, which seamlessly feeds
>>>> N1MM Logger. I think the CC Clusters do some filtering to validate
>>>> spots from multiple skimmers. My usual nodes are VE7CC-1 or AE5E-2.
>>>>
>>>> RTTY Skimmers have definitely come of age in the past 12 months.
>>>> Many thanks to all those who are feeding the RBN, both CW and RTTY!
>>> The quality of RTTY skimmer spots does continue to improve, but there
>>> is still a significant 'leakage' of spots for stations that are
>>> replying to a CQ.
>>>
>>> Although "CQ" can appear at both the beginning and end of a text
>>> string, it still should not be too difficult to parse an ambiguous
>>> fragment like "GM3W CQ K6LL". One of the two spaces in that string
>>> will be a genuine, synchronous RTTY <space> character; but the other
>>> will just be an asynchronous gap between two different stations.
>>>
>>> And above all: if there is any doubt, the skimmer should *not* spot!
>>> It isn't a race between different skimmers, and there's sure to be
>>> another CQ coming along shortly.
>>>
>>> Another problem last weekend was that one specific skimmer (DF4UE-#)
>>> was spotting consistently incorrect callsigns.
>>>
>>>
>>> 73 from Ian GM3SEK (@GM3W)
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dave
>>>> Hachadorian
>>>> Sent: 22 March 2016 23:03
>>>> To: reflector RTTY
>>>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Skimmer
>>>>
>>>> In my experience, the VE3NEA RTTY Skimmers are much improved lately
>>>> on spotting stations that are actually calling CQ. I always connect
>>>> to a CC-Cluster node, using CC-user Software, which seamlessly feeds
>>>> N1MM Logger. I think the CC Clusters do some filtering to validate
>>>> spots from multiple skimmers. My usual nodes are VE7CC-1 or AE5E-2.
>>>>
>>>> RTTY Skimmers have definitely come of age in the past 12 months.
>>>> Many thanks to all those who are feeding the RBN, both CW and RTTY!
>>>>
>>>> Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
>>>> Yuma, AZ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: pcooper
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 10:31 AM
>>>> To: Al Kozakiewicz
>>>> Cc: rtty at contesting.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Skimmer
>>>>
>>>> Al AB2ZY and the group,
>>>>
>>>> I have local access to a skimmer cluster as well as a normal cluster.
>>>> Both run simultaneously here in the shack 24/7. Looking at the
>>>> skimmer cluster, I repeatedly see spots for stations that are
>>>> responding to a CQ call, rather than calling CQ themselves.
>>>>
>>>> I have tried using the skimmer cluster in a contest, and that simply
>>>> clogs up the bandmap with loads of spots that aren't calling CQ.
>>>> I know the skimmer clusters are supposed to be intelligent and only
>>>> spots calls who are sending CQ, but I see far more spots for those
>>>> that aren't.
>>>>
>>>> Where cluster access is allowed in a contest, I will use the normal
>>>> cluster, as I mostly use it to gauge whether another band is open, or
>>>> worth trying. If there is some juicy DX spotted, I may well try for
>>>> them, depending on the situation, but generally, if that juicy DX has
>>>> just been spotted, it's usually pointless trying, as loads of others
>>>> will already be there.
>>>> This was evident during the BARTG contest at the weekend, as I came
>>>> across FP/KV1J calling CQ on 20m, so I tried to get in, but he had a
>>>> mini pile-up going. I did try a couple of times more, but then he got
>>>> spotted, and I gave up, as it just got silly, with callers shouting
>>>> over each other and the exchange in progress.
>>>> Happily came across him again later, and got in first shout. It was
>>>> similar with HP3/VY2SS.
>>>>
>>>> That's just my own view of things.....
>>>>
>>>> 73 de Phil GU0SUP
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RTTY mailing list
>>>> RTTY at contesting.com
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RTTY mailing list
>>>> RTTY at contesting.com
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RTTY mailing list
>>> RTTY at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:32:27 -0400
> From: "V Sidarau" <vs_otw at rogers.com>
> To: <rtty at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Skimmer
> Message-ID: <001b01d185d1$9cc832c0$d6589840$@rogers.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Don,
>
> Let me respectfully disagree with your positive statement regarding the
> trailing CQ.
> 1. The "CQ call" exists for several decades now. It used to have a strict,
> clear and logic sequence, CQ [General call, Listen to me, I am ready to
> communicate with everybody] DE [My identification follows] AB1CD [actual
> call-sign] PSE K [Please go ahead with calling me]. The trailing CQ breaks
> the sequence. I for one, if I see or hear a CQ, I expect a call-sign to
> follow. If no call-sign follows, I feel confused.
> You can say, my reading is just emotional, who cares about "proper"
> sequence, and the trailing CQ does already have its own well established
> history. All correct,
>
> BUT
>
> 2. It is perfectly clear by now that trailing CQ calls for problems, at
> least with RTTY skimmers. If AB1CD finishes a QSO and CD1AB calls him, the
> string like
> QSL 73 AB1CD CQ CD1AB CD1AB
> most probably will end up with CD1AB spotted by a skimmer as a CQer. It is a
> problem, and it will remain a problem as long as the trailing CQ is around.
>
> To make the long story short.
>
> My QSL-QRZ button is programmed as
> QSL TU VE3IAE QRZ
> and I never have anybody else spotted on my run frequency.
>
> OK, QRZ is 1 character longer than CQ (big deal) but your CQ frequency
> remains your CQ frequency.
>
> 73,
>
> Vlad VE3IAE
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Don Hill AA5AU
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 10:21 PM
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Skimmer
>
> We've heard some good things in this thread. We heard from, I think it was
> Dave K6LL, who believes the RTTY skimmer spots are getting better. And we've
> heard from Pete, N4ZR, saying that by using "aggressive" validation, we get
> better spot accuracy with only a small reduction in the number of spots.
> This all seems good but we need all RTTY skimmer ops to use this aggressive
> setting.
>
> I shied away from using RTTY skimmer spots after trying to use them on a
> couple of occasions last year only to get slowed down by chasing spots of
> S&P stations instead of run stations. I am going to try using skimmer spots
> again during EA RTTY next weekend to see what improvements have been made. I
> do realize the potential upside of RTTY skimmer spots.
>
> I do have one question. I understand that one of the biggest issues is that
> RTTY contesters place "CQ" at the end of their CQ message (and it's for good
> reason). Most of us use a single space at the end of that message. Would it
> help if everyone who places CQ at the end of their CQ message, used two
> spaces instead of one after that trailing "CQ"? If so, I'll start doing that
> and advocate that others do it as well. Would it make a difference? Would we
> get less S&P stations being spotted by RTTY skimmer?
>
> 73, Don AA5AU
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Pete Smith N4ZR
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 5:45 AM
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Skimmer
>
> Thanks for calling this out, Ian. I checked, and discovered that DF4UE is
> running "minimal" validation. I'm sure this is an oversight on his part,
> and have just sent an e-mail to him suggesting he adopt the recommended RBN
> standards of "normal" validation on CW and "aggressive"
> on RTTY. Recent tests confirmed that "aggressive" validation on RTTY results
> in usefully better spot accuracy with only a small reduction in the raw
> number of spots.
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> Download the new N1MM Logger+ at
> <http://N1MM.hamdocs.com>. Check
> out the Reverse Beacon Network at
> <http://reversebeacon.net>, now
> spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
> For spots, please use your favorite
> "retail" DX cluster.
>
> On 3/23/2016 4:28 AM, Ian White wrote:
>> K6LL wrote:
>>> In my experience, the VE3NEA RTTY Skimmers are much improved lately
>>> on spotting stations that are actually calling CQ. I always connect
>>> to a CC-Cluster node, using CC-user Software, which seamlessly feeds
>>> N1MM Logger. I think the CC Clusters do some filtering to validate
>>> spots from multiple skimmers. My usual nodes are VE7CC-1 or AE5E-2.
>>>
>>> RTTY Skimmers have definitely come of age in the past 12 months.
>>> Many thanks to all those who are feeding the RBN, both CW and RTTY!
>> The quality of RTTY skimmer spots does continue to improve, but there
>> is still a significant 'leakage' of spots for stations that are
>> replying to a CQ.
>>
>> Although "CQ" can appear at both the beginning and end of a text
>> string, it still should not be too difficult to parse an ambiguous
>> fragment like "GM3W CQ K6LL". One of the two spaces in that string
>> will be a genuine, synchronous RTTY <space> character; but the other
>> will just be an asynchronous gap between two different stations.
>>
>> And above all: if there is any doubt, the skimmer should *not* spot!
>> It isn't a race between different skimmers, and there's sure to be
>> another CQ coming along shortly.
>>
>> Another problem last weekend was that one specific skimmer (DF4UE-#)
>> was spotting consistently incorrect callsigns.
>>
>>
>> 73 from Ian GM3SEK (@GM3W)
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dave
>>> Hachadorian
>>> Sent: 22 March 2016 23:03
>>> To: reflector RTTY
>>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Skimmer
>>>
>>> In my experience, the VE3NEA RTTY Skimmers are much improved lately
>>> on spotting stations that are actually calling CQ. I always connect
>>> to a CC-Cluster node, using CC-user Software, which seamlessly feeds
>>> N1MM Logger. I think the CC Clusters do some filtering to validate
>>> spots from multiple skimmers. My usual nodes are VE7CC-1 or AE5E-2.
>>>
>>> RTTY Skimmers have definitely come of age in the past 12 months.
>>> Many thanks to all those who are feeding the RBN, both CW and RTTY!
>>>
>>> Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
>>> Yuma, AZ
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: pcooper
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 10:31 AM
>>> To: Al Kozakiewicz
>>> Cc: rtty at contesting.com
>>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Skimmer
>>>
>>> Al AB2ZY and the group,
>>>
>>> I have local access to a skimmer cluster as well as a normal cluster.
>>> Both run simultaneously here in the shack 24/7. Looking at the
>>> skimmer cluster, I repeatedly see spots for stations that are
>>> responding to a CQ call, rather than calling CQ themselves.
>>>
>>> I have tried using the skimmer cluster in a contest, and that simply
>>> clogs up the bandmap with loads of spots that aren't calling CQ.
>>> I know the skimmer clusters are supposed to be intelligent and only
>>> spots calls who are sending CQ, but I see far more spots for those
>>> that aren't.
>>>
>>> Where cluster access is allowed in a contest, I will use the normal
>>> cluster, as I mostly use it to gauge whether another band is open, or
>>> worth trying. If there is some juicy DX spotted, I may well try for
>>> them, depending on the situation, but generally, if that juicy DX has
>>> just been spotted, it's usually pointless trying, as loads of others
>>> will already be there.
>>> This was evident during the BARTG contest at the weekend, as I came
>>> across FP/KV1J calling CQ on 20m, so I tried to get in, but he had a
>>> mini pile-up going. I did try a couple of times more, but then he got
>>> spotted, and I gave up, as it just got silly, with callers shouting
>>> over each other and the exchange in progress.
>>> Happily came across him again later, and got in first shout. It was
>>> similar with HP3/VY2SS.
>>>
>>> That's just my own view of things.....
>>>
>>> 73 de Phil GU0SUP
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RTTY mailing list
>>> RTTY at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RTTY mailing list
>>> RTTY at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RTTY Digest, Vol 159, Issue 43
> *************************************
More information about the RTTY
mailing list