Got GPS? Before you can know where you are, your GPS receiver has to figure out what time it is, and does so very accurately. GPS is how the NCCC beacon stations stay synchronised. Bill Coleman, AA4L
I know I'm a bit late to the party on this issue, but I'd like to disagree with Dave here. I believe there's an errant assumption at work here. If the sole purpose of operating contests was to put in
Bill, I though think that anyone who is an MIT alumni would be able to acknowledge that modes like PSK31 could easily be superior to CW. On a theoretical grounds, PSK has a signal/noise advantage of
There ARE NO CW subbands on HF. There are a few narrow CW-only subbands on VHF, but not on HF. CW is permitted everywhere, and there are no indications it will be prohibited. I really get annoyed at
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
Technically, you're incorrect. Human-read CW signals are limited by being audible above the noise. Certain digital modes can greatly exceed that capability. N4HY and W3IWI did experiments back in the
I've seen this argument so many times, I'm somewhat sick of it. It is a good technical point. My question is -- why is it only applied to SSB? Wouldn't this operation also be beneficial for CW? Of co
*IF* feedlines were lossless, this would be true. In some situations, one can use a feedline that is nearly lossless, so that the absolute SWR matters less. Such antennas are usually compromise anten
It's not true, Pete. The "phone" subbands actually separate analog modulation (voice, fax, television), from "digital" subbands (RTTY, Packet, etc). CW is permitted everywhere. CW operators can choos
This has been a topic of discussion before. I remember an article in the last 15 years or so indicating that perhaps the best way to enhance digital contesting is to develop a special protocol for co
Well, RTTY operators have been using 2 or 3 radios for quite some time. And it isn't a difficult task to process multiple digital signals at one time. There are PSK31 appliactions that do this today.
Does it? That's an open question. [ Sound reasons removed ] This is essentially Shannon's law. (Actually, the law takes into account both the bandwidth and the threshold above noise -- the total area
Guy, Please name one NASA space mission in the last 40 years that has used CW/OOK as a means of information transmission. The "zero" state is exactly the problem with OOK. That's why it is inferior t
Very interesting. This topic has come up before -- why not include RTTY on 160m? Traditionally, hams have found that 45 baud RTTY doesn't work so hot on 160m. The reason for this is the same reason t
And I believe, when this was suggested several months ago, I suggested it should just be High/Low band, but perhaps, any three bands. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net Quote: "Not wit
I had a very different, but equally interesting story. I was S & Ping on 40m, when I ran across 7245 kHz, where I heard a couple of ragchewers finish up a QSO. I then got on and asked if I could use
Well, I don't know if I count as one of the experienced, but "more" is relative.... Anyway, I've learned several important lessons from much more experienced contesters that revolve around judgement.
I think the only thing IN your price range is the K2 or K2/100. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilbur Wright, 1901 ______
Yeah, what's up with that? Why doesn't it have the same rules as the CQWW CW and Phone? Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wi
Exactly my point -- why do the rules change? CW and Phone have the same rules, just the mode changes. Why would RTTY be different? Or has this got to do with the relatively low population of stations