[RTTY] QRP RTTY in contest

[Jim Rhodes]

I will try to remember to crank the power down when I hear your call. ;-)

On Sep 27, 2016 1:51 PM, "Jeff Rinehart via RTTY" <rtty at contesting.com>
wrote:

> 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
> *************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>