Tim I've made this suggestion before on this reflector. I can suggest a completely independent way of measuring the frequency of a RTTY signal received by your radio and AFSK system. You will need "D
Bob, Didn't you mean to say '72" HDTV with color, surround sound, video, *where 30% of the programming is advertisements*'? Well, yeah, that's like Facebook. -Take it in jest, we all need all ways to
Folks, "granting Facebook a non-exclusive use of your content." is the definition of " "I discovered every bit of info they glean is theirs -- never to be destroyed..." As a "test", see if you can "u
Phil We stray from "RTTY" here, but since there are apparently RTTY groups on Facebook, I think the discussion is fair game. That non-rescindable permission we gave to FaceBook lets them use ALL of o
Don, This may help. Here are a couple of FAQ's they did not ask, here they are with my answers. "What is the current limitation on bandwidth of digital emission (except two-tone RTTY) at MF and HF?"
Jim, Yes you can, as long as it strobes at a rate ("symbol rate") less than 300 baud, AND, it can't be just wide band noise. Iit must be a real digital signal. An OFDM (similar to WiFi) signal that w
Ron, Answer: Wide bandwidths are not prohibited under today's rules. Bandwidths of up to 200 kHz depending on the MF-HF ham band (300 kHz at 10m band) are *permitted* today in the digital sections of
Currently, and applying broadly to the FCC term "RTTY", 97.307(f) - "The symbol rate must not exceed 300 bauds, or for frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift between mark and space must not exce
I'm not going to pursue this pointless debate. It's up to the FCC now. 73 Kai, KE4PT 97.307(f) is not the only limitation on data modes ... 97.3(c)(2) specifically limits image modes when transmitted
Please also note the region 1 and region 3 IARU band plans listed on the region 2 page. These plans have been there for years. Additionally, in the USA, the ARRL have recommendations at http://www.ar
Ken Perhaps sending the call sign at the end of a QSO might be an over-interpretation of the FCC rule to send one's call sign at the end of a QSO? Thanks for the good tips for and first timer. 73 Kai
Ken Perhaps sending the call sign at the end of a QSO might be an over-interpretation of the FCC rule to send one's call sign at the end of a QSO? Thanks for the good tips for the first timer. 73 Kai
I think there is something wrong with your analysis, and with your spectrum display. The widths you claim for the signals are not consistent with the spectrum width you show if the width of the cente
Jay, to answer your queries ... Why is this necessary? Today's rules do not regulate bandwidth, you can use much more than 100 kHz legally (the whole CW/data segment) as long as the symbol rate is le
Andy, No baloney! I urged and helped Ed write that FCC comment. The proposed experiment is real.. If you want to discuss this, we should take it off the reflector. 73 Kai, KE4PT I decided not to refe
Chen, I guess you are joking of course. c= 299,792,458 m/s by definition. We do however want to measure the propagation speed of signals in the ionosphere, multipath properties, dispersion. Signals p
Bob, I've meant it as a courtesy to the others on this reflector. We've strayed from far from RTTY. 73 Kai, KE4PT 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN -- On 3/14/2014 7:54 PM, Kai wrote: Andy, No baloney! I urged
You're quite right Chen. At the risk of annoy the moderator with off-topic discussions, time-of-flight is not all that needs to be measured, but it is necessary to a certain precision. The probe sign
Terry, You need to look at the "ERRATUM" filing: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520959653 as well, where that ARRL makes a correction to their original proposal. Nothing changes in the te
Terry, One possible way to get figures on CW, Phone and RTTY usage is to look at DXpedition statistics. ClubLog list totals < https://secure.clublog.org/expeditions.php > but does not break out by mo