[RTTY] QRP RTTY in contest

Tue Sep 27 15:51:15 EDT 2016

I missed this past RTTY test but like others, I am tired of trying to pull in qrp stations in NPOTA or contesting.  I do appreciate what they are trying to do though in most cases.  If I can't hear a station in a contest, I immediately think they must be qrp and move on.  I try to not let it bother me but I do try to work everyone - it still bothers me though.  

I have done several NPOTA activations, all with 100 watts and a dipole up at least 25 feet - this past Saturday the dipole was up 50' but from an RF hole along wild scenic river WR02.  

If QRP is the best they can do then so be it.  Maybe they live under antenna restrictions?  But if they are making me strain my ears just so they can say they worked someone then I don't have much patience for that.  de Jeff W4PJW Jeffrey M. Rinehart W4PJW 
e-mail: W4PJW at arrl.net

      From: "rtty-request at contesting.com" <rtty-request at contesting.com>
 To: rtty at contesting.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 2:30 PM
 Subject: RTTY Digest, Vol 165, Issue 37

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. Re: QRP (Richard Kriss)
  2. Re: Rate killer/QRP (Jeff AC0C)
  3. Re: Q Rate Killers--One Ham's Thoughts (Jeff AC0C)
  4. Re: Q Rate Killers (Jeff AC0C)

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

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:34:32 -0500
From: Richard Kriss <aa5vu at att.net>
To: RTTY Reflector <rtty at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] QRP
Message-ID: <54C70E64-96BC-400B-A157-38A7BAAD0106 at att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset=utf-8

> 
>  1. Re: Q Rate Killers (Bill Turner)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:28:34 +0000
> From: Bill Turner <dezrat at outlook.com>
> To: RTTY Reflector <rtty at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Q Rate Killers
> 
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 08:38:30 -0400, Dave wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 3. Because of the higher possibility of repeat requests, does anyone 
>> think that qrp is out of place in some or all RTTY contests.
> 
> REPLY:
> 
> Maybe I'm just an old grump, but I think QRP is annoying anywhere in
> ham radio, not just contests. The QRPers are proud of their lousy
> signals whereas the REAL work is done by the stations trying to copy
> them. 
> 
> Flame deflector on, fire away. :-)
> 
> 73, Bill W6WRT
> 

Bill W6WRT, 

I agree with you.  I have been active as a chaser in the ARRL?s National Park on the Air (NPOTA) for 2016 with 411 park units currently confirmed on LoTW. Yes, I am tied of working QRP stations. Happiness is a an activator station with 100 watts and decent antenna. Many of the activators use QRP and most of the time they are not heard.  They get on, work the 10 contacts that can hear them and move on. I have missed a number of new ones because I could not hear them.  It has been a challenge but I have relearned to listen better.

I don?t understand why anyone would try to work a RTTY contest QRP.

73 Dick AA5VU
Austin, TX

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

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 13:24:03 -0500
From: "Jeff AC0C" <keepwalking188 at ac0c.com>
To: "Dick-W0RAA" <dickt at w0raa.com>,    <rtty at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Rate killer/QRP
Message-ID: <FCA4DF193F2F46238A61544759A04C7D at w520>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
    reply-type=original

This is not a rate killer.  Either you can hear the guy well enough to get 
minimal print, or you can't.  If he's in there but not strong enough, then 
just keep running.  If he's not strong enough to print cleanly he's not 
going to prevent you from working the next guy who is a few db stronger and 
chances are the next guy will be stronger than that by tens of db.

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie

-----Original Message----- 
From: Dick-W0RAA
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:16 AM
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: [RTTY] Rate killer/QRP

I agree with you 100%, Bill.  My theory is "Life is too short for QRP."  I 
have my flameproof suit on.  :)

Dick - W0RAA

>
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>  1. Re: Q Rate Killers (Bill Turner)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:28:34 +0000
> From: Bill Turner <dezrat at outlook.com>
> To: RTTY Reflector <rtty at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Q Rate Killers
> Message-ID:
> 
> <CY1PR0301MB1196EDA0AC80266B08798143C0CC0 at CY1PR0301MB1196.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> ------------ ORIGINAL MESSAGE ------------(may be snipped)
>
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 08:38:30 -0400, Dave wrote:
>>
>>
>> 3. Because of the higher possibility of repeat requests, does anyone
>> think that qrp is out of place in some or all RTTY contests.
>
> REPLY:
>
> Maybe I'm just an old grump, but I think QRP is annoying anywhere in
> ham radio, not just contests. The QRPers are proud of their lousy
> signals whereas the REAL work is done by the stations trying to copy
> them.
>
> Flame deflector on, fire away. :-)
>
> 73, Bill W6WRT
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RTTY Digest, Vol 165, Issue 35
> *************************************
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty 

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

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 13:28:28 -0500
From: "Jeff AC0C" <keepwalking188 at ac0c.com>
To: "Hank Garretson" <w6sx at arrl.net>,    "RTTY Reflector"
    <rtty at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Q Rate Killers--One Ham's Thoughts
Message-ID: <2CEA1C62573F464498AF31DE7D31C4B2 at w520>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";
    reply-type=original

Great article Hank.

The "DE DE" (don't use DE for anything except a state) issue and the "QSO 
B4" (log em all, even if they seem to be dupes) are lessons that need to be 
put on a rookie RTTY contesting neon sign.

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie

-----Original Message----- 
From: Hank Garretson
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 9:16 AM
To: RTTY Reflector
Subject: [RTTY] Q Rate Killers--One Ham's Thoughts

Here is something I wrote for National Contest Journal a few years back.
It's not the Holy Grail, but it is food for thought.

"Editors Note:  Hank, W6SX, is inspirational with his positive ?Contest
Exuberantly? signature on the contest reflectors.  In this guest column, he
shows us how contest techniques and tactics can be dynamically optimized
around the specifics of the QSO.  There is no single way to execute a QSO ?

It Depends

What?s the best way to make contacts in RTTY contests? It depends.

Almost everything in contests depends. Contesting is a dynamic,
situation-dependent activity. There?s no one-size-fits-all approach to
making RTTY contacts. That?s what makes contests fun. The trick is to match
each contact to the situation, to maximize score and fun, and to be
friendly so everyone comes back for more.

Since everything depends, what's the best approach? I suggest modularity.
Create modular macros that can be sent one at a time or strung together as
the situation dictates. With modularity, you have the best of many
worlds?crafting each contact to the conditions.

Some ground rules. It?s a contest and a prime objective is to maximize
score. It?s a contest and a prime objective is to have fun. It?s a contest
and a prime objective is to help others have fun and maximize their scores.
We?re all in this together, and we can all do a lot to help each other
maximize score and have fun.

The Amateur is Friendly.1 What?s the best way to be friendly? It depends.
My rule for contests is that completing the contact in shipshape fashion as
quickly as possible is the most friendly thing I can do for the other guy
and for the other guys waiting. And, it?s generally the most friendly thing
you can do for me. The running station sets the tone. If the CQing station,
even if he?s my best friend, sends me a standard-issue exchange, the most
friendly thing is to send him a standard-issue exchange without
pleasantries. If he says HI HANK, then he?s giving me the go-ahead to
loosen up a (little) bit. It?s a contest?be contest friendly during the
event and regular friendly afterwards.

To DE or not to DE. It depends, but mostly not. Almost all the time, who is
sending is clear from sequence and timing. DE usually adds nothing to a
contest exchange, and DE can be very confusing. For instance, W6SX 599 IN
DE w4xxx. Ditch the DE.

What?s the best way to CQ? It depends. A good approach is to maximize your
call and minimize stuff that doesn?t add value. CQ DL DX RTTY CONTEST DE
w8xxx?not so good. CQ DL W6SX W6SX CQ?much better. Or CQ TEST W6SX W6SX
W6SX CQ. Note that the CQ at the end is standard RTTY contest procedure and
helps late tuners know that you are soliciting contacts.

How much to send the other guy?s call? It depends.  When you?re answering a
CQ, you don?t need to send the CQer?s call?he knows his call. Just drop
your call once, twice, or three times depending on circumstances. How about
when you?re running?

CQ TEST W6SX W6SX CQ
W0YK W0YK
W0YK 599 23 23 (W0YK)

Many routinely send the W0YK at the end of the exchange. Others never do. I
suggest that it depends. If W0YK is the only station responding, there
isn?t much to be gained by sending his call twice. If there is more than
one caller, then sometimes, sending W0YK at the end of the exchange will
avoid confusion and a time-wasting double. Note the sometimes. For
instance, sometimes it pays to hesitate a bit and let multiple callers
finish before responding to the first guy. In this case, I generally won't
send the other guy's call at the end, but if I hear a signal just as I hit
transmit, I'll add the other guy's call at the end. Even with multiple
callers, often it?s still clear to everyone who is being working, and the
second W0YK is not necessary. If you don?t lock yourself into always
sending the second W0YK, you quickly develop a good sense of when to send
it and when to skip it.

What if you?ve answered a CQ. It depends. You are sending your report to
someone who certainly knows his own call. Unless there?s ambiguity, I
normally don?t send the CQer?s call. But many stations routinely do, and
that?s OK. For the S&P station, I don?t think there is anything to be
gained by sending the CQer?s call at the end of the exchange.

(W6SX) 599 23 23
(W0YK) TU W6SX CQ

Many routinely send W0YK when confirming and concluding a QSO. Others never
do. I suggest that it depends. If there is no doubt who was worked, I
usually don?t send his call. But if there is any ambiguity, I?ll send it.
Other times, for example, when trying to get a JA run going, I may send the
other guy?s call to extend my transmit time and let other JAs know that I?m
hearing them. Sometimes I?ll send the other guy?s call when I?m trying to
defend a run frequency. It depends?there is no one answer.

Sending the other guy?s call at the end of an exchange and sending the
other guy?s call when acknowledging a contact is like a political or
religious discussion. Some people always do it one way, others always the
other way. I suggest that the best bet is flexibility suited to the
circumstances, but I?m not going to argue with anyone who gets the contact
done.

What?s the best way to send repeats. I have one unequivocal answer. Send
only what is being asked for. Don?t send his call?he knows his call. If he
asks for the number, send only the number once, twice or three times. Do
not send 599 33 33, and for sure don?t send 599 599 33!

Which brings us to ? macros and flexible macros.  Be careful when using
canned macros with your logging software. If the exchange is RST NR, then
programming an F-key to send your exchange twice will yield 599 47 599 47.
Never, never repeat 599. Send it once per contact and never send it again.
It?s often best to hard program your F-keys instead of using your logging
software macros. For instance, make F2 599 # # instead of EXCH EXCH. In
many cases, you are smarter than your logging software.

Flexible macros. If someone asks for your serial number again, don?t use
F2, which will send your whole exchange. Instead program another F-key with
your number only. The name of the game is to program F-keys so you can send
exactly what the situation requires instead of being forced to send canned,
extraneous stuff that wastes everybody?s time.

What to send in your exchange? It depends. NCJ NAQP first.

AA5AU HANK CA (AA5AU)

Since I am a W6, live in California, have a decent signal, and am
reasonably well known, I send HANK and CA once each. If my name were
Maximilian, I?d send it twice. If I were a Six outside of California, I
would definitely send my state twice. If your call makes where you live
unambiguous, send your location only once. For instance, a VE3 needs to
send ON only once.

Now a contest with serial numbers, for instance, CQ WPX RTTY.

K4GMH 599 328 328 (K4GMH)

Some people say send serial number once. Others say twice. Still others say
three times because if you get it two out of three times, you?ll know it?s
right. I normally send serial number twice, and below I show how this works
well. But the real answer is it depends. If you are loud and running,
people get more than one chance to figure out your serial number, and once
may be good enough. Caution?this may not work if the running station is
SO2R where serial numbers might not be consecutive. If conditions are
particularly poor, three times might be called for. It depends, which is
why having flexible macros is a plus.

Which brings us to the question of when to ask for a repeat. When do you
have enough to log a contact? It depends. You don?t have to copy a number
twice to be confident that you have it right.

If I print 599 005 W6SX, the 599 and W6SX bracketing the 005 tell me it?s
probably good. I?ll log it unless something else tells me to question it.

One ?something? is that you can often tell by ear if an exchange printed
correctly. Or, perhaps more importantly, you can often tell by ear if an
exchange is corrupted.

If I print 599 005 0%&*, I?ll probably log 005.

If I print 599 005^*A, I?ll ask for a repeat.

There are lots of scenarios you can build. Contest radiosport is risk
evaluation. Do I interrupt a 100-per-hour run to be 100% sure of an
exchange? Or do I evaluate as above and take a chance I?ll lose a low-point
QSO to log checking? Does my calculus change if it?s a new multiplier I?m
not likely to find later? Of course.

For a really good discussion of contest risk taking, see ?Logging Accuracy:
Error Control for SS,? by ND2T.2 In a contest, adjudicated score is the
final arbitrator. I take some risks. My Log Checking Reports indicate that
I?ve achieved a decent balance between 100% correct and score and fun.

Finally, how do I know that the other guy has my call correct? It depends.
For instance, if I?m running and I print W6RX 599 003 003, I probably won?t
try to ?correct? him. I send my call twice when I CQ and at least once
every contact, so the other guy has had ample opportunity to get my call
right. I assume that he sent my call correctly and it took a hit.
Additionally, by sending 599 003 003 or TU 599 003 with or without my call,
he is QSLing my call and exchange?he?s saying I have it, I have all I need.
If he?s not sure of my call, he needs to ask for it. Contesting is a
two-way street, and both operators have responsibility to get it right.
But, it depends. If I print W6RX 599 003 003 W6RX, I?ll correct the other
station.

Modularity, no unneeded stuff, flexibility, and friendliness are what make
contesting fun for everyone. See you in the next contest everyone.

1. The Amateur?s Code, Paul M. Segle, W9EEA (SK)

2. Available on the Northern California Contest Club website at
http://www.nccc.cc/misc/ErrorControl-ND2T.wmv "

Diddle Exuberantly,

Hank, W6SX
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty 

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

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 13:30:24 -0500
From: "Jeff AC0C" <keepwalking188 at ac0c.com>
To: <w6nws at arrl.net>,    <rtty at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Q Rate Killers
Message-ID: <F2F63D08520B48669F38491CB36623D5 at w520>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
    reply-type=response

This is a W0YK talking point.  I think he calls it "slow down to speed up" 
or something.

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie

-----Original Message----- 
From: Larry
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 7:31 AM
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Q Rate Killers

Another thought.  Sometimes there were so many stations calling not a
single discernible call could be found. Waiting a bit without sending
would usually get someone to send their call again - at least enough to
pick a call. Everyone else may think I had fallen asleep, I wouldn't use
that tactic too often however.

73, Larry W6NWS

On 9/26/2016 11:16 PM, Bill Turner wrote:
> ------------ ORIGINAL MESSAGE ------------(may be snipped)
>
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:41:01 -0400, you wrote:
>
>> It is what it is. Deal with it, complete the QSO and go on to the next 
>> one.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>>
>> John K8AJS
> REPLY:
>
> Keep in mind that the slow ops are slow for everybody. In other words,
> they don't affect the outcome of the contest. If they were faster,
> they would be faster for everybody.
>
> 73, Bill W6WRT
> _______________________________________________
> 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 165, Issue 37
*************************************