ad: vanity

Should there be a Separate RTTY DXCC?

Discussion in 'The DX Zone' started by WA6MHZ, Jul 7, 2018.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: l-assoc
  1. WA6MHZ

    WA6MHZ Subscriber QRZ Page

    This Question was brought up at Visalia, but no definitive answer was provided other than it being to hard too implement. Now, all your Hard Fought for RTTY contacts are being lumped in with the trendy FT-8 contacts.

    I want it separate as there is an Extreme amount of effort involved in making a RTTY DX Contact as compared to a FT-8 contact.

    RTTY is a BRUTE FORCE Mode. You gotta be strongest into the DX or you don't get decoded! This is even harder than a SSB contact. DX stations can hear partial calls on voice and respond to the partial.

    I have been on the DX End of an RTTY Pileup so I know personally how tough it is to pull out a call. The ones who got thru where spread away from the clogging and the were decodable.

    So alot of DXers feel snubbed when all the FT-8 starts getting mixed in with the RTTY.
    in FT-8, the COMPUTER does all the work. All the OP does is do a few mouse clicks.
    of course I am not implying we need to go back to the days of Model 28 clack-clackers

    In the past KH1 Dxpedition most of their none Voice/CW contacts were FT-8. I only recall a small number of times they ventured back to the old RTTY mode. So if you didn't do FT-8,you probably didn't make the log!!!

    FT-8 is wonderful for poor prop times and low power stations! I see true miracle contacts especially on 6Meters!!

    But should FT-8 be equal to RTTY for DXCC purposes?

    I have an All RTTY DXCC and would like to add to it.
    But is seems DX are now Shunning RTTY except in the dedicated RTTY contests in favor of FT-8
    SURE it is easier!!! But is EASIER always better?
    I feel a great sense of Accomplishment when I work a DX Station on RTTY!!
     
  2. WG7X

    WG7X Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Pat,
    Not too long ago, there was a rush to get our RTTY WAS award from the ARRL before it too, was combined into a digital (all mode) award. It's probably too late for a "pure" RTTY DXCC award.

    Having played with the FT8 mode for a while now, I see it only as another digital mode. It does make getting contacts into the log easier and that is probably its main attraction.
     
  3. W7UUU

    W7UUU QRZ Lifetime Member #133 Life Member Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Why not just accomplish it on your own and just know you did it?

    I don't see a need for ARRL to put a blessing on an achievement if you did it all yourself and know what you did.

    No one using another mode can take that away from you
    !

    :)

    Dave
    W7UUU
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2018
    N2SUB, N2EY and KV6O like this.
  4. KB4QAA

    KB4QAA XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Yes, there should be a RTTY DXCC, but only for operators of genuine 'green key" machines! No computer processed stuff!!! "Oil and Chad forever!" <CR> <LF>

    p.s.
    Proof of contact will be accepted by submission of yellow tear sheet or reperforated paper tape, properly hand annotated with cross, TOR/TOT and op initials, only! ;)

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2018
    W3ATV, KB2FCV, KP4SX and 1 other person like this.
  5. K7MH

    K7MH Ham Member QRZ Page

    W8ZNX once said "glass RTTY has no soul".
    Perhaps. But it sure is less noisy!! Machine RTTY may have been the original reason hams had "shacks" that were separate from the house!!
     
  6. N2EY

    N2EY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Way back in the 1970s we had teleprinter RTTY at the U.

    Yes, it was noisy. It also used up paper, tape, ink ribbons and oil. But it sure was something to behold when it was all working.

    The point is well taken. DXCC or WAS or any award made with "machine" RTTY is a whole different thing from the same award with "glass" RTTY.

    No, not at all.

    If you think teleprinters are noisy, try being around a kilowatt rotary spark transmitter. No video can do it justice, but here's a taste:



    After King Spark was dethroned, there was still the matter of high voltages and messy things like electrolytic rectifiers, mercury-arc rectifiers, motor-generator sets, etc.

    (OK folks - who here can explain the difference between a mercury arc rectifier and a mercury vapor rectifier without looking it up?)

    ----

    It is my understanding that ARRL will issue an award, or an endorsement, for just about anything that can be determined from the confirmation (QSLs or LoTW).

    For example, single-band WAS, single-mode WAS, single-band-single-mode WAS, WAS with all 1x2 callsigns, etc. So a RTTY-only DXCC is provided for in the rules as long as the confirmations all say RTTY.

    What ARRL won't do is to provide a mountain of separate "Honor Roll" listings - nor will they issue endorsements for things that can't be determined from the confirmations.

    73 de Jim, N2EY
     
    K7MH and KB4QAA like this.
  7. W7UUU

    W7UUU QRZ Lifetime Member #133 Life Member Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    The ARRL had absolutely no plan to award me a "Worked All States via Heathkit HW-16 or SB-101" so I just made my own :D:D

    Dave
    W7UUU

    upload_2018-7-7_11-18-55.png

    upload_2018-7-7_11-19-48.png
     
    N2SUB, KB2FCV, AL4Y and 5 others like this.
  8. SM0AOM

    SM0AOM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Having worked with both, the mercury arc rectifier uses an arc between one or more electrodes and a pool of metallic mercury as its rectifying element, but the mercury vapor rectifier uses an heated cathode in a mercury vapor filled electron tube to accomplish more conventional diode action.

    In two of the MF broadcast transmitters operated by Swedish Telecom Radio in the early 80s, there were filament rectifiers using the mercury arc principle. They delivered several hundred amperes at 15 volts each.

    Due to their extremely low forward voltage drop, they were kept for efficiency reasons until the transmitters were scrapped.
     
    N2EY, W5BIB and KB4QAA like this.
  9. KB2FCV

    KB2FCV Ham Member QRZ Page

    I love it Dave!! Are you now working on your "Rockbound" endorsement for the HW-16? :)

    I was considering trying for DXCC on my HW-16..
     
  10. W7UUU

    W7UUU QRZ Lifetime Member #133 Life Member Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Haha! No, the 16 is long gone.

    However, I'm hoping that beginning in the fall, I'll embark on a fresh "Nostalgic W.A.S. " using 100% rock bound Johnson Adventurer that I got from @K1OIK - I have new filter caps ready to go in it, and some repairs to do but should be a very easy fix. I'll then pair it with a Drake R4A I happen to have on hand. I have a well-organized tray of really good FT-243 rocks.

    In fairness, my HW-16 had been modified (not by me, done years earlier) for 20m operation instead of 15 and worked amazingly well. It is absolutely within reach for DXCC on a HW-16 if you have the 20m mod!! But even stock, if you have a really good 40m antenna and a beam on 15, even with the solar minimum, it should totally be possible from where you live!

    Dave
    W7UUU
     
    K1OIK likes this.

Share This Page