Mail Archive Search: <+from:psussman@pactor.com>

Results:

References: [ +from:psussman@pactor.com: 182 ]

Total 182 documents matching your query.

101. [RTTY] Shift 170 -vs- 200 (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 07:58:59 -0400; I've noticed over the years that some manufacturers (for whatever reason) have moved to use a 200Hz shift instead of the standard 170Hz shift. The reason for the move is unclear, perhaps it is merely; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-06/msg00068.html (7,813 bytes)
102. Re: [RTTY] Self spotting question (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:43:20 -0400; When an AFSK signal is properly adjusted it is not possible to determine whether the signal was generated by using AFSK or FSK. The probability of mis-adjustment, of course, is far greater with AFSK; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-07/msg00066.html (9,846 bytes)
103. [RTTY] It hums but doesn't know the words (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2011 20:43:06 -0400; This is Phil, N8PS, and a devoted follower of audio. I've got an odd problem and thought I'd run it by you. I have an SCS-PTC modem (5 pin DIN) connected to an JRC JST-145 Transceiver (25 pin male D); /archives//html/RTTY/2011-10/msg00003.html (8,199 bytes)
104. [RTTY] QSO opinion (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:18:27 -0400; Yes, it is just my opinion, yet I thought it may be worth mentioning. A QSO is generally accepted to be a two way conversation. If one side or the other does not have the correct information (Callsig; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-10/msg00084.html (7,804 bytes)
105. Re: [RTTY] QSO opinion (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:38:29 -0400; To Bill and others, Thanks for your emails. My objective was not to 'stir up trouble' but rather to indicate how accepting or denying QSOs on someone's individual log is pretty much a hit-or-miss sit; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-10/msg00092.html (9,316 bytes)
106. Re: [RTTY] WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 20:53:58 -0400; Don, The 17m appears to be a resonance issue. I'd suspect an input device rather than the computer itself (since once the input clears, the messages go out). Suggestion: The keyboard is most suspect; /archives//html/RTTY/2012-04/msg00035.html (10,672 bytes)
107. Re: [RTTY] Query? (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 09:00:04 -0400; Certainly - Certainly Just go to the Contesting.com web site and in the left margin select RTTY under "Other Lists". http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/rtty/ 73 de Phil - N8PS -- Quoting allan1@de; /archives//html/RTTY/2012-07/msg00030.html (7,773 bytes)
108. [RTTY] Question (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 06:09:53 -0400; I am trying to calculate the impedance of open wire transmission line and I've stumbled across two different formulas. I'm dealing with open wire feeder composed of #14 stranded wire with ceramic ins; /archives//html/RTTY/2012-10/msg00179.html (7,855 bytes)
109. Re: [RTTY] US call signs (BARTG) (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:48:20 -0500; Mike is correct, but there are certain restricted identifiers /AE /AA /MM /R etc. for specific purposes. Otherwise, you can add what you please. Note: For those with several homes does that 'proposal; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-01/msg00121.html (12,540 bytes)
110. Re: [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 09:38:08 -0500; OK, Master Chen -- I remember reading something that you authored a while ago about (-) dashes and USOS and the best way to structure your set-up. As I recall, perhaps mistakenly, (-) dashes were in; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00099.html (10,059 bytes)
111. [RTTY] Confused with USOS (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:39:09 -0500; Chen, I'm confused - perhaps because I can't easily visualize the set-ups: Here are the confusing (in my mind) possibilities SENDING STATION RECEIVING STATION Transmitter USOS Receiver USOS Transmitt; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00374.html (11,446 bytes)
112. [RTTY] My thoughts on RTTY analysis (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:37:50 -0400; I've been following the thread and now I'm tempted to step gingerly into the lion's den. From a practical point of view, yes the RTTY analysis is interesting. However, I've got a point of view. First; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-03/msg00171.html (9,859 bytes)
113. Re: [RTTY] BoD votes LoTW initiatives (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:51:11 -0400; Not to beat a dead horse, however there are two unrelated factors at work. First, there supposed limits on message content. Who reviews messages handled by third party forwarding? How are violations; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00126.html (10,712 bytes)
114. Re: [RTTY] Looking for an interface - a few simple requirements (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 06:21:39 -0400; Chen, Your explanation of 'slow-RTTY' is clear and welcome as a source. In the 'good-ole-days' such instances were rare (unless something was broken). Personally I believe that more detail was spent; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00066.html (19,061 bytes)
115. Re: [RTTY] Looking for an interface - a few simple requirements (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 21:46:53 -0400; Jay, Long time, no QSO. Hope you are well. You're right, most PACTOR-1 was reverse engineered and not licensed. Meanwhile, RTTY is flexible, yet I believe AMTOR was more robust. I wonder if there eve; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00103.html (9,875 bytes)
116. Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:05:15 -0500; Bill, Yeah, we'll fumble with the FCC rules and see what actually happens. It won't be as expected and Chaos will show up no matter what; hopefully followed shortly thereafter by Maxwell Smart. 73 de; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-11/msg00149.html (10,358 bytes)
117. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side" (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:21:28 -0500; I have some mixed feelings about this whole "emergency" process. Overall, there is a difference between symbol rate and the justification based upon emergnecy use in the HF ham bands. Joe makes a val; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00068.html (11,842 bytes)
118. Re: [RTTY] Comments on RM-11708 now most active (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:22:00 -0500; The FCC has posted a notice that the FCC web site will be down for maintenance until 8:00am on Sunday, December 22nd. 73 de Phil - N8PS _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing li; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00142.html (8,058 bytes)
119. Re: [RTTY] Comments on RM-11708 now most active (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:22:20 -0500; The FCC has posted a notice that the FCC web site will be down for maintenance until 8:00am on Sunday, December 22nd. 73 de Phil - N8PS _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing li; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00143.html (7,606 bytes)
120. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 Comments (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 09:29:23 -0500; I received a confirmation number on my filing as well; however, I believe that I did get in under the wire. Meanwhile, when checking the number for acceptance I got the "Not yet available on line." I; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00157.html (9,252 bytes)

Current List: 101 - 120
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]