Mail Archive Search: <+from:aa4lr@arrl.net>

Results:

References: [ +from:aa4lr@arrl.net: 83 ]

Total 83 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP RTTY 160M Survey (score: 1): Author: aa4lr@arrl.net (Bill Coleman); Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 21:58:40 -0400; 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; /archives//html/RTTY/2002-08/msg00069.html (9,166 bytes)
2. [RTTY] Re: [CQ-Contest] RTTY WPX and NA Sprint CW this weekend (score: 1): Author: aa4lr@arrl.net (Bill Coleman); Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:07:11 -0500; Easy. Region 1 (and much of Region 3) only has 7000-7100 kHz. SSB operations typically go down to 7040 kHz. Then RTTY, then CW. You'll also note that the QRP CW calling frequency is 7040. 7040 is the; /archives//html/RTTY/2002-02/msg00106.html (7,640 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] A little LoTW gotcha (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 18:45:01 -0500; On Feb 8, 2005, at 10:20 PM, Bill Turner wrote: Did any of you know that your LoTW certificates have to be renewed every year? Actually, no they do NOT. They only need to be renewed if you plan to ac; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-02/msg00108.html (10,581 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] A little LoTW gotcha (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 20:27:46 -0500; On Feb 9, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Bill Turner wrote: No big deal? Is that so? I suggest you talk to the several people who have emailed me following an attempt to replace an expired cert and are thoroughly; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-02/msg00110.html (10,183 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] Rigblaster- worth the money? (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 12:16:39 -0400; How handy are you with building electronic projects? The commercial adapters certainly look nice and have good features -- but it really isn't hard to build your own interface. All it takes is a coup; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-05/msg00016.html (7,326 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] Delete, if you're not going to Dayton (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 22:39:46 -0400; I wish Mike and George the best, I hope the hall is completely full. I will say, as a relative newcomer to RTTY, that getting started is a teeny bit hard since there are nearly no RTTY signals on the; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-05/msg00076.html (7,591 bytes)
7. [RTTY] Volta RTTY AA4LR SOAB LP (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 11:08:23 -0400; Volta RTTY DX Contest Call: AA4LR Operator(s): AA4LR Station: AA4LR Class: SOAB LP QTH: GA Operating Time (hrs): 1.8 Summary: Band QSOs Pts Mults -- 80: 1 40: 7 20: 19 15: 1 10: 0 -- Total: 28 0 0 To; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-05/msg00083.html (7,503 bytes)
8. Re: [RTTY] CocoaModem (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 22:11:32 -0400; Yes! I built one. Mine is pretty simple. I have a 1k/8ohm audio transformer on the receive side. The 8 ohm side plugs into the headphone jack. The 1k side goes to the line input of my PowerBook. I al; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-05/msg00090.html (7,961 bytes)
9. Re: [RTTY] LOTW QSL rate (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 17:00:55 -0400; I've found the response rate is greatly dependent on two things: the age of the QSOs and the location. I've placed ALL of my logged QSOs into LoTW, going back to 1976. My first confirmation is in 198; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-05/msg00116.html (7,981 bytes)
10. [RTTY] When did mechanical teleprinters become obsolete? (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 08:21:56 -0400; I was just thinking (dangerous, I know) this morning about the history of RTTY, and I wondered exactly when did the use of mechanical teleprinters become obsolete? Now, back in 1975, there was a fell; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-05/msg00151.html (7,455 bytes)
11. Re: [RTTY] ANARTS - Unsportsmanship like behaviour??? (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:14:10 -0400; Split during contests is rare, but is not considered unethical. In fact, during a DX Phone contest, most of the contacts with the US and DX on 40 and 80m will be made split. (40m for obvious reasons,; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-06/msg00140.html (7,831 bytes)
12. [RTTY] NAQP RTTY AA4LR Single Op LP (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 08:09:15 -0400; North American QSO Party, RTTY Call: AA4LR Operator(s): AA4LR Station: AA4LR Class: Single Op LP QTH: GA Operating Time (hrs): 2.7 Summary: Band QSOs Mults -- 80: 4 4 40: 37 18 20: 32 19 15: 3 29 10:; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-07/msg00181.html (8,038 bytes)
13. Re: [RTTY] NAQP: Name accuracy ? (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:52:18 -0400; No, this is not right. If you copied the other guy's exchange correctly, then you get full credit for the QSO. If he messed up, he'll lose the contact, plus he may face penalty QSOs as well. Unless R; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-07/msg00191.html (7,649 bytes)
14. Re: [RTTY] 160 Meter RTTY (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:26:16 -0400; The problem with 160m RTTY is the same problem with 40m and 80m packet radio. On 160m, signals arrive via multiple propagation paths causing inter-symbol interference. The solution is to reduce the s; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-08/msg00239.html (7,676 bytes)
15. Re: [RTTY] 160 Meter RTTY (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:33:33 -0400; It's obvious. Most of the world only has access to 7000-7100 kHz as the 40m band. 7040 is the RTTY calling frequency, because 7030 is the QRP CW calling frequency in most of the world. Hopefully, thi; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-08/msg00240.html (7,428 bytes)
16. Re: [RTTY] Frequencies??? (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:45:24 -0400; Here's a good link: http://pages.cthome.net/n1mm/html/English/RTTYGeneral.htm Scroll down to the "Common RTTY Frequencies" title Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net Quote: "Not within a; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-08/msg00259.html (7,244 bytes)
17. [RTTY] 30m RTTY (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 08:57:03 -0400; While 160m RTTY is certainly interesting, the band that needs more RTTY activity is 30m! I got on last night around 10.138 MHz and had a nice QSO with N3WT. Called a few more CQs, but had no other ta; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-08/msg00264.html (6,796 bytes)
18. [RTTY] Rus RTTY AA4LR SOSB/20 HP (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 17:15:39 -0400; Russian RTTY WW Contest Call: AA4LR Operator(s): AA4LR Station: AA4LR Class: SOSB/20 HP QTH: GA Operating Time (hrs): 1.0 Summary: Band QSOs Pts Mults -- 80: 0 0 40: 0 0 20: 39 285 17 15: 0 0 10: 0 0; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-09/msg00016.html (7,535 bytes)
19. Re: [RTTY] note against RTTY-contester (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:14:49 -0400; A quick look on QRZ.com shows that W7AIT happens to be an advanced class ham, and therefore has no access to 7000-7025 kHz. So, from his perspective, a good portion of the band was overrun by RTTY si; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-09/msg00139.html (8,851 bytes)
20. Re: [RTTY] note against RTTY-contester SECOND NOTICE (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:40:06 -0400; You lost me at "lids". I thought I very carefully explained why 40m from 7025-7100 kHz was active with RTTY operators this weekend. I also thought I very carefully explained why 7100-7150 would be RT; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-09/msg00186.html (8,735 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]