Excuse the bandwith, another post test and Bulwinkle Moose exclaimed: "This time for sure!" eh? Phil Sussman Clayton, Ohio _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@conte
Hint.. I've been guilty of misprogramming the antenna jacks and then plugging into the wrong one. Whoops! Hope this helps. P. Sussman Clayton, Ohio -- Quoting Steve AI9T <steve@ai9t.com>: ___________
Hi all... Just thought I'd throw in my 2cents worth. PSK popularity seems to be driven by its low cost with a side product its reliability under moderate to adverse conditions. By comparison in terms
Perhaps you misunderstood my intent; for I was not pleading any intent for using (or not using) PACTOR or any other mode. My observation was that COST was the driving factor, not quality. Likewise, o
In the early days of PACTOR everyone was sending pictures composed of ASCII characters. I've still got many on disk somewhere. Phil Sussman - N8PS -- Quoting Peter Laws <plaws@plaws.net>: ___________
I agree with Chen to the extent that software solutions can rival fixed hardware boxes... and in certain case with a lot of 'tweaking' exceed them. Unfortunately reality is a different teacher. A qui
Chen hit the nail on the head, thanks! Both TNC's and software solutions have their place. Using software can be beneficial when the installation is properly implemented. I do question the relative '
I've been out of touch for a while due to illness, but I'm on the mend and on the way back. Joe is right on the money with his one. Listen before transmitting and the ability to monitor (eg. open) tr
Joe raises an `excellent point. When PACTOR-1 was released by SCS, the protocol was made freely available. AEA and MFJ made drastic cuts to the specifications (esp. in the relm of A/D converters) whi
(Did this get posted originally? I didn't 'see' a copy) Joe raises an `excellent point. When PACTOR-1 was released by SCS, the protocol was made freely available. AEA and MFJ made drastic cuts to the
Thanks for the comments, Carter. Hams being frugal is nothing new. The guys who invented PACTOR were fugal hams, too. Their commerical stuff sells for a lot more of those frugal dollars than their le
What Bill says, limited -vs- unlimited makes sense to me. I've avoided contests recently because I was told that any contact with me is worthless because I've given up bothering to submit my log. I w
What Bill says, limited -vs- unlimited makes sense to me. I've avoided contests recently because I was told that any contact with me is worthless because I've given up bothering to submit my log. I w
What Bill says, limited -vs- unlimited makes sense to me. I've avoided contests recently because I was told that any contact with me is worthless because I've given up bothering to submit my log. I w
Bill makes a lot of sense with this. Look, the only policing that really works is 'self-policing.' The concept of this not being enforcable is a joke. No rule can really be enforced even if someone d
But Barry, Bill was not talking about SO2R. He was replying to 'what consitutes SO1R?'. My observation is that you can have SO2R capability in your rig and only use SO1R by choice! It's not the rig t
I'm not really into contesting anymore, but I agree with Rick and Shelby that something ought to be done to separate the average Joe, SO1R, operation from the obsessive point gatherers. Call it "Unli
"Why bother classifying the stations. The high scoring guys need computers to track all their points. Use two classes.. computer submissions and paper submissions?" That got me thinking.. old fashion
Hi Bill, Oh, I was just trying to make a point albeit my wife did offer the suggestion. Separate classes are clearly needed (eg. paper -vs- computer) and I was providing a 'visual' aid. Regards, Phil
I suppose there are two sides to every argument, just as there are two sides to every pancake. Perhaps I am 'misreading' this thread, and if I am, please forgive me. But in the SO1R / SOmR discussion