On 7/19/02 5:55, Bill Tippett at btippett@alum.mit.edu wrote:
>Perhaps he would like to demonstrate digital modes are superior by
>comparing contest results for existing contests. Here are high-claimed
>CQ/RJ WW RTTY scores from last fall's contest:
>
>http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/3830/2001-October/029841.html
>
>The highest number of contacts made by any single op was 2461 QSO's
>which is not even close to the typical CW or SSB SOAB scores.
>From this -- what conclusions would you draw? Is this because of the
actual characteristics of the operating mode, or is something else a
factor?
Hint: the level of activity on RTTY contests isn't nearly as high as that
on CW or SSB. Bottom line is that there are many fewer stations CAPABLE
of making RTTY contacts than those that can make CW or SSB contacts.
>I even
>made more than that myself on 10 meters alone! Isn't it about time
>we stop taking these "expert" claims at face value and do a reality
>check with the brain God has given us?
Big Amen to that. Let's use our brains.
Anyone with brains would realise that if there were more stations active
on RTTY contests, rates and QSO totals would be higher. Much higher.
> Then I have a challenge for CQ Magazine Dave. Replace the CQ
>160 SSB contest (where SSB has already been proven inferior to CW) with
>the CQ 160 PSK31 contest. Let's just see if Chariman Powell and ARRL's
>claims are true rather than taking them at face value.
What would this "replacement" prove?
> Sure some of the computer-to-computer modes (PSK31, WSJT, QRSS)
>can extract signals below the noise level, but how quickly do you think
>they could make contacts? A QRSS contest would be a real blast to hear
>at ~0.8 words per hour!
PSK31 is roughly the same speed as CW. It would be a better choice for
most run-of-the-mill communications.
Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901
|