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

Results:

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

Total 83 documents matching your query.

61. Re: [RTTY] SO2R, small lot? (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 15:24:51 -0400; Sorry to reply to an old thread. I don't know about 40 feet, but I've been successful at running a limited SO2R on phone with a tribander and vertical separated by 120 feet with NO filters at all and; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-10/msg00009.html (7,909 bytes)
62. Re: [RTTY] IARU and 14100 Beacon QRM from Digital Signals (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 15:56:39 -0400; I think we can take courteous operating seriously without having write every possible scenario into a set of draconian rules for each contest. I disagree. With proper education and gentle peer pressu; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-10/msg00012.html (8,573 bytes)
63. Re: [RTTY] Answering CQ's (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 17:28:09 -0400; works most all the time. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilbur Wright, 1901 _____________________________________________; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-10/msg00014.html (8,088 bytes)
64. Re: [RTTY] IARU and 14100 Beacon QRM from Digital Signals (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:40:20 -0400; Sure you will. Say I'm calling CQ and my radio dial reads 14.081.50. Since I'm using AFSK and LSB, my mark signal will be 14,081,500 Hz - 1415 Hz = 14,080,085 Hz. The Space signal will be 170 Hz lowe; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-10/msg00029.html (9,827 bytes)
65. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Screwed by FCC? (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:50:30 -0400; I figured this out late last night. Extending Voice transmissions down to 3600 seemed like a good thing until I realized that there's a lot of traditional RTTY activity that takes place between 3600; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-10/msg00105.html (8,232 bytes)
66. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Screwed by FCC? (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:14:39 -0400; I figured this out late last night. Extending Voice transmissions down to 3600 seemed like a good thing until I realized that there's a lot of traditional RTTY activity that takes place between 3600; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-10/msg00119.html (9,443 bytes)
67. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Screwed by FCC? (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:03:05 -0400; There's other evidence of some carelessness here, too. 97.221 defines segments where automatically controlled digital stations may operate. The R & O did not amend these, but the segment for 80m is d; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-10/msg00120.html (9,007 bytes)
68. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Screwed by FCC? (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:03:35 -0400; RTTY is digital. SSTV is analog. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilbur Wright, 1901 _____________________________________; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-10/msg00121.html (8,092 bytes)
69. Re: [RTTY] ZL8R and RTTY (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:22:54 -0400; I worked them easily at 2335z on Monday on 15m. Didn't even take that many calls. I think 4 and 5-land had a pipeline into this area of the world, though. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arr; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-10/msg00197.html (7,950 bytes)
70. Re: [RTTY] Fw: ZL8R demo on You Tube (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:28:37 -0400; They have been on 17m RTTY for over 12 hours! Really amazing. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilbur Wright, 1901 ________; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-10/msg00234.html (8,265 bytes)
71. Re: [RTTY] YU6AO (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:42:33 -0400; Sorry to hear that. RTTY is a really tough mode for busting pileups. The capture effect of the decoders, and the lengthy, continuous nature of the transmissions really makes it hard to bust through.; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-10/msg00235.html (8,573 bytes)
72. Re: [RTTY] 160 (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:36:44 -0500; 45 baud RTTY is likely problematic. If you cut the symbol rate in half, it would be reasonable, although it would take twice as long to send something. The cause is intersymbol distortion caused by m; /archives//html/RTTY/2007-02/msg00271.html (6,939 bytes)
73. Re: [RTTY] hyphen or no hyphen (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:37:59 -0500; Wife assault aside, I find that listening to the signals gives you an extra dimension that you can't always get from watching the print and crossed-banana display. You can often hear signals that don; /archives//html/RTTY/2007-02/msg00323.html (9,205 bytes)
74. Re: [RTTY] PSK and waterfall - some more (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:22:53 -0500; That's not just a property of PSK, but of any mode. A weak signal in the midst of several strong stations will be hard to copy. That's why many receiver specifications deal with close-in dynamic rang; /archives//html/RTTY/2007-02/msg00346.html (9,523 bytes)
75. Re: [RTTY] RTTY is getting lower and lower in frequency on 20meters. (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:37:58 -0500; Gosh, this last weekend during the ARRL CW, the CW operators were all the way through 14.080 and beyond. I worked some DX as high as 14.130! I guess that the CW operators don't respect anyone.... (<g; /archives//html/RTTY/2007-02/msg00350.html (9,239 bytes)
76. Re: [RTTY] RTTY is getting lower and lower in frequency on 20meters. (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:43:10 -0500; 7030 kHz is about right for the bottom end of the Region 1 RTTY subband. Remember, not everyone in the world has 300 kHz on 40m. Most of the world only has 100 kHz. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail:; /archives//html/RTTY/2007-02/msg00351.html (9,130 bytes)
77. Re: [RTTY] PSK and waterfall - some more (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:51:05 -0500; When properly adjusted, there should be no discernible difference between an FSK and AFSK signal. The key is to find the proper adjustment. Curiously, I found that when using CocoaModem, once setting; /archives//html/RTTY/2007-02/msg00357.html (7,153 bytes)
78. Re: [RTTY] 160 (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:56:01 -0500; The most logical contest to incorporate 160m would be the NAQP -- where 6-band capability and the ability to find and/or pass multipliers is crucial to making top scores. I know that I didn't serious; /archives//html/RTTY/2007-02/msg00362.html (9,472 bytes)
79. Re: [RTTY] 160 (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:48:01 -0500; I realise this is somewhat contentious. However, one point. At the current sunspot low, with the MUFs about as low as they get, the multipath distortion present on 160m will be at its minimum. Althou; /archives//html/RTTY/2007-02/msg00370.html (9,783 bytes)
80. Re: [RTTY] 160 (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:04:27 -0500; W8JI has done a number of experiments with full size 1/4 wave verticals (130 feet) as well as full-size 1/2 wave dipoles at 300 feet. In Tom's experience, the verticals are equal or more effective th; /archives//html/RTTY/2007-02/msg00371.html (10,848 bytes)

Current List: 61 - 80
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]