It would seem to me that both the caller and DX are subject to being
clobbered in the proposal. If I am up 2, the DX calls me up 2, there is no
protection if someone else decides up 2 is a good place and begins to call.
Depending on the new stations signal strength, propagation, et al, the DX
and/or I may get clobbered. Now I suppose if the new station actually
listened first he/she might have heard the QSO in progress and wait until we
complete before sending. There is probably a better chance under the
proposal that the new station would actually listen first but I am not sure
I would count on it. Too many times I might call N8PS and the number of
stations sending that have none of the characters in their call can be
amazing.
In theory today's split leaves the DX on a clear frequency so at least one
side of the QSO is clear. Obviously we are discussing this because the
theory has some problems.
73, Larry W6NWS
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Sussman
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 11:15 AM
To: Steve
Cc: rtty@contesting.com
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
-----
Quoting Steve IK4WMH <ik4wmh@virgilio.it>:
Hello Bill,
Wednesday, February 5, 2014, 1:50:05 PM, you wrote:
BT> Spread out more. We often jam ourselves into a few kHz, when we
BT> have the entire RTTY sub band available.
If your radio has a narrow 250 Hz filter you can probably accomodate 4
strong signals per kHz.
If a DXpedition is going to use your RTTY sub band entirely on 20m,
say from 14080 to 14150, you have 4 signals for 70 kHz resulting a
total of 280 channels in the clear.
Now:
- wiping out an entire band theoretically gives you no more than 280
free spots while the callers are many, many more;
- the DX signal is usually much weaker than the callers, finding a
clear spot between all the strong and *wide* signals I often hear
could be very difficult;
- in my country and many other countries the SSB starts at 14101
instead of 14150 as in the USA so the DXpeditioner must be aware of
many local band plans;
- a lot of criticism is heard from those not interested in DXing when
a big DXpedition uses a large portion of the band thus preventing them
from having regular QSOs...suggesting to use the entire sub band will
make more people angry;
- sometimes you may think your frequency is clear while it is already
in use by a station that you can't hear due to the skip so you keep
calling and calling with no chance of being printed by the DXpedition;
BT> Keep in mind the four main advantages you would be gaining:
BT> 1. No interference from jammers on the DX frequency.
No need for jammers to play havoc on the DX frequency, most of the
time we would find ourselves jamming each other.
BT> I think it's worth a try.
I am not sure it would be the best solution.
Steve IK4WMH
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|