Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

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

Total 83 documents matching your query.

41. Re: [RTTY] ARRL Bandwidth Proposal - FCC Invites Comments (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 07:55:59 -0500
That won't fly. It's the PROTOCOLS that need to be freely available. They need to be published and available to anyone who wants to implement. Exactly. While proprietary protocols have no business on
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00333.html (9,103 bytes)

42. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Best Practices (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:42:19 -0500
Chen, Cabrillo is just a data format for sending in logs -- it doesn't do the checking. However, the contest judges use several layers of checking to adjudicate a contact. Say W7AY and AA4LR make a c
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00377.html (9,579 bytes)

43. Re: [RTTY] Narrow RTTY (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:08:38 -0500
In thinking of narrow shifts, you can theoretically get down to extremely small values. If you think of FSK as two OOK symbols spaced a short distance apart, there comes a point when the sidebands of
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00402.html (8,750 bytes)

44. Re: [RTTY] ARRL Bandwidth proposal (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 08:56:41 -0500
Has anyone? <grin> Uh, yeah! I can think of a couple of occasions where the ARRL pushed really hard on a proposal, and the FCC eventually did not adopt it. Currently, the ARRL recommended that the FC
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00465.html (8,471 bytes)

45. Re: [RTTY] [ARRL-LOTW] Now this is a tad funny about LoTW (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:00:48 -0500
Similarly, you'd think that the IARU HQ stations would submit their logs. I worked a bunch of them during the IARU contest this summer. I think only one or two submitted logs to LoTW. There were even
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00539.html (8,033 bytes)

46. Re: [RTTY] LoTW - another view (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:15:09 -0500
You have to be a member for the ARRL awards program anyway.... (if you are in the US) Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilb
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00640.html (7,350 bytes)

47. Re: [RTTY] External DSP devices (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:57:43 -0500
While these external devices certainly work, they can only have a limited amount of effectiveness. Any signal in the passband will pump the AGC of the rig before it gets to the audio stages of the DS
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00735.html (8,380 bytes)

48. Re: [RTTY] External DSP devices (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:06:04 -0500
For that price range, you can buy a NEW K2/100 with the external KAT100 tuner. Of course, you'd have to build it, but that would be half the fun. The downside of the K2/100 is you can only run about
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00737.html (8,512 bytes)

49. Re: [RTTY] Tips for contesting... (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:19:56 -0500
Verticals are ok for 80 and 160m (oh, wait, there's virtually no RTTY on 160m, scratch that). What you need are some decent antennas! A tribander at 50 feet or higher and a rotatable dipole for 40m w
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00738.html (8,498 bytes)

50. [RTTY] What is MINIRTTY? (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 21:58:52 -0500
I was looking at the list of supported modes for LoTW, and somewhere in this list of digital modes there was MINIRTTY. I'd never heard of this mode, so I did a search on google -- All I turned up wer
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00009.html (7,172 bytes)

51. Re: [RTTY] What is MINIRTTY? (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 20:45:51 -0500
Found it here: http://www.mixw.net/signals.htm It defines MTTY as 45 baud RTTY with a 23 Hz shift. Gee, weren't we just talking about something similar...? Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@ar
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00026.html (7,636 bytes)

52. Re: [RTTY] Getting tqsl to sign Cabrillo files (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 20:36:30 -0500
I have never had trouble getting TQSL to sign a Cabrillo file. In fact, I don't think it is possible to create a legal, correct, Cabrillo file that TQSL cannot sign. Even if it is for a contest that
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00095.html (8,109 bytes)

53. Re: [RTTY] 160 Band Plan/RTTY On 160 (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:05:57 -0500
While there is no DX window in the bandplan, there certainly is a lot of DX CW activity in the region from 1820-1835 kHz. I think that's way over the top. The biggest problem with 160m is that it is
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-03/msg00208.html (10,404 bytes)

54. Re: [RTTY] RTTY on 160 Meters (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:57:02 -0500
Problem with RTTY operation on 160m has to do with multi-path propagation causing inter-symbol interference. It's the same reason why 300 baud packet works on 20m, but not on 80m. Reducing the symbol
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-03/msg00220.html (7,357 bytes)

55. Re: [RTTY] AL-80B on RTTY (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 23:34:09 -0400
I have it's younger cousin, the AL-80A. I've run it around 400 watts out for a couple of hours of running on RTTY with no ill effects. The plates of the 3-500Z will glow red, but that's pretty normal
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-06/msg00005.html (7,203 bytes)

56. Re: [RTTY] Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:20:39 -0400
Practically speaking, there's not a whole lot of difference between these two antennas. They are both trapped tribanders with similar boom lengths 19 and 18.5 feet, respectively. I would favor the A4
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-07/msg00016.html (8,624 bytes)

57. Re: [RTTY] Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:56:07 -0400
Unfortunately, the Spiderbeam wasn't one of the two choices that the gentleman was originally asking about. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net Quote: "Not within a thousand years will
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-07/msg00019.html (7,434 bytes)

58. [RTTY] CQ WW RTTY AA4LR SOAB HP (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:24:25 -0400
CQ Worldwide DX Contest, RTTY Call: AA4LR Operator(s): AA4LR Station: AA4LR Class: SOAB HP QTH: GA Operating Time (hrs): 6.5 Summary: Band QSOs Pts State/Prov DX Zones -- 80: 29 34 18 0 2 40: 134 209
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-09/msg00238.html (8,486 bytes)

59. Re: [RTTY] Are digital modes a DXexpedition afterthought? (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 22:03:53 -0400
Sorry to reply to such an ancient thread, but.... Sometimes Dxpeditions do things based on limitations or restrictions that aren't evident to outsiders. A couple of likely problems come to mind. Firs
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-09/msg00240.html (8,281 bytes)

60. Re: [RTTY] IARU and 14100 Beacon QRM from Digital Signals (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 08:02:45 -0400
The ARRL also has this to say: "5) Interacting with non-contesters ... c) Band plans ... Band plans are just that - plans. They are designed for normal circumstances when band loading is much lighter
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-10/msg00001.html (12,052 bytes)

Current List: 41 - 60
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
This search system is powered by Namazu