Mail Archive Search: <+from:ross

Results:

References: [ +from:ross_family@acm.org: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [ct-user] FT-990 (score: 1): Author: Charlie and Janet Ross <ross_family@acm.org> (Charlie and Janet Ross); Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 10:31:34 -0500; I'm considering buying a Yaesu FT-990. I would like to computer-control it with CT. I'm interested in feedback from any 990 users. Either general comments (how well do they play together) or comments; /archives//html/CT-User/2000-03/msg00113.html (7,495 bytes)
2. [ct-user] FT-920 Comments? (score: 1): Author: Charlie and Janet Ross <ross_family@acm.org> (Charlie and Janet Ross); Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 18:53:28 -0500; I'd like to thank all the people who replied to my query about the Yaesu FT-990 and FT-890. I got a lot of good reports. Several folks went to a lot of effort to explain technical details--greatly ap; /archives//html/CT-User/2000-03/msg00133.html (7,290 bytes)
3. [ct-user] Safe CT Rev for ARRL DX? (score: 1): Author: Charlie Ross <ross_family@acm.org> (Charlie Ross); Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:35:23 -0500; After seeing the messages earlier this month about Y2K problems and the like... Is there a safe/stable CT rev for use in the upcoming ARRL DX contests? --Charlie, NC1N -- ross_family@acm.org -- Charl; /archives//html/CT-User/2000-01/msg00050.html (7,099 bytes)
4. [ct-user] Dropped Chars on TNC Interface (score: 1): Author: Charlie and Janet Ross <ross_family@acm.org> (Charlie and Janet Ross); Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 22:19:04 -0500; Good News: My 386/16 contesting computer is being replaced by a 486/133. Bad news: I'm having problems with CT and COMTSR3 talking to the TNC. Configuration: Win95 booted to DOS. COM 3, standard base; /archives//html/CT-User/1999-12/msg00122.html (8,208 bytes)
5. [ct-user] Fwd: Dropped Chars on TNC Interface (score: 1): Author: Charlie and Janet Ross <ross_family@acm.org> (Charlie and Janet Ross); Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 10:51:40 -0500; Status update: Appears to be resolved. Changed TNC to 8 bits-no parity and it worked. Why COMTSR1 had been happy with the old settings on the old card on the old computer, whereas COMTSR3 on the new; /archives//html/CT-User/1999-12/msg00123.html (7,022 bytes)
6. [ct-user] Newbie Questions (score: 1): Author: Charlie and Janet Ross <ross_family@acm.org> (Charlie and Janet Ross); Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 22:08:34 -0400; WPX was my second CW contest. A couple of CT questions that I haven't been able to find answers for: 1. Is there a keystroke to send just the number, not the full exchange, in response to an "NR?" 2.; /archives//html/CT-User/1999-06/msg00009.html (7,163 bytes)
7. [ct-user] 1 Newbie Question Answered (score: 1): Author: Charlie and Janet Ross <ross_family@acm.org> (Charlie and Janet Ross); Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 07:33:45 -0400; Thanks for the replies to my questions yesterday. Thanks to K3WW: To get leading zeroes in the CT exchange, invoke CT with the -LZ switch. Re my other question: I've received a couple of suggestions; /archives//html/CT-User/1999-06/msg00010.html (7,615 bytes)
8. [ct-user] 9.39 Problems (score: 1): Author: Charlie and Janet Ross <ross_family@acm.org> (Charlie and Janet Ross); Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 05:57:46 -0500; Noticed two things about 9.39 during WPX. Each of these was new compared to 9.37, the last version I used. Note: using 640 x 480 VGA with a old, cheapisimo 16-color (NOT 16-bit!) video card. 1. Didn'; /archives//html/CT-User/1999-03/msg00149.html (8,459 bytes)
9. [ct-user] CT Clock Operating Time (score: 1): Author: Charlie and Janet Ross <ross_family@acm.org> (Charlie and Janet Ross); Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 11:38:59 -0500; OK, this is probably a dumb question and I'm overlooking something obvious. I keep seeing postings where people report how much time they operated in a contest according to a clock in CT. How is this; /archives//html/CT-User/1999-02/msg00112.html (7,151 bytes)
10. [ct-user] CT "Time On" Clock (score: 1): Author: Charlie and Janet Ross <ross_family@acm.org> (Charlie and Janet Ross); Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 06:18:58 -0500; Thanks for all the replies about the CT clock. I was staring at it all along in the rate window. Funny, I've looked at that window many times, but somehow filtered out the clock lines, remembering on; /archives//html/CT-User/1999-02/msg00117.html (7,225 bytes)
11. [ct-user] MFJ Voice Keyer Control (score: 1): Author: Charlie Ross, NC1N" <ross_family@acm.org (Charlie Ross, NC1N); Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 07:33:42 -0500; I would like to control my MFJ-432 voice keyer from CT using a parallel port. The CT manual has an example control circuit (p. 20), and references another in the March/April 1990 NCJ. I'm not up to t; /archives//html/CT-User/1999-01/msg00076.html (6,923 bytes)
12. [ct-user] QSL9 Problem (score: 1): Author: Charlie Ross, NC1N" <ross_family@acm.org (Charlie Ross, NC1N); Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 19:26:26 -0500; I used CT 9.37 for CQWW SSB, then used QSL9 to prepare labels. I encountered a time problem with the labels in QSL9... the time on each QSO is 7 hours too early... e.g. my first contact was really at; /archives//html/CT-User/1998-12/msg00041.html (7,487 bytes)
13. [ct-user] 9.37 Multi-Transmitter Band Change Issue (score: 1): Author: Charlie and Janet Ross <ross_family@acm.org> (Charlie and Janet Ross); Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 18:50:27 -0400; We (K1TW, K1ILR, and me) used CT for the first time for FD. We used CT 9.37 and ran 2A. For various reasons, we didn't network the PCs but did periodic, manual log merges. We noticed the same kind of; /archives//html/CT-User/1998-07/msg00002.html (7,558 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]