CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] IARU - Join Us

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] IARU - Join Us
From: "hank k8dd" <k8dd@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:31:00 -0400
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
And ..... RTTY ops generally (notice I said generally, not always or
usually) don't listen aurally to a frequency - it's kinda like they
don't see much on their little display and they just plop their little
alternating frequencies that are 170 Hz apart and start calling.

Kinda frustrating when they get down below 7030, but then that's when
it's time to go to 30, 18, or 12 meters!

73    Hank    K8DD



On 6/18/07, Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net> wrote:
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:05:16 -0500, Jim George <n3bb@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Bill, I think that this is erroneous from a technical standpoint. RTTY
> >signals are wide, and can not be removed with a 400HZ or 250HZ filter. They
> >have inherent frequency shifting, unlike CW.
>
> ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
>
> With its 170 Hz shift, including sidebands, RTY occupies about 250-300
> Hz of spectrum, depending on the sharpness of the keying waveform. CW,
> depending on the speed and sharpness of the keying waveform, occupies
> about 50-100Hz. CW is not a single frequency signal when the sidebands
> generated by on-off keying are considered. Granted, RTTY is slightly
> wider, but not much. Not nearly as much difference as CW/RTTY and SSB.
> There is no reason to say they are incompatible other than operator
> likes or dislikes.
>
> Bill W6WRT
> ________________
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>