Hello Everyone, Does anyone know if there is software available to run RTTY from a PDA or Pocket PC? Thanks, Bob KE4QOK _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesti
Taking the existing Winlink stations and transmitting bandwidths and changing the bandwidths to 2.8 KHz, we can get a idea on the future increase in consumed bandwidth/interference if RM11708 is appr
I've noticed a few changes also. For some strange reason, some mail servers are doing reverse DNS lookups so if you're using your private e-mail SMTP server to send mail under your own domain, the me
Thanks to inputs from Ted, N9NB, the model was changed where the results are now in dB showing the additional interference if current Winlink stations move to RM11708 max bandwidths of 2.8 KHz. The a
Terry one thing the model doesn't take into account, unless I missed something, is the fact that the Winlink stations will spread out horizontally even more to avoid interfering with each other. Funn
Terry, One other issue ... PACTOR III is 2.2 KHz not 2.4 KHz. That change will further increase the additional interference by at least 0.5 dB. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 4/17/2014 9:36 PM, RTTY wrote: Tha
Hi Ron, If they spread out a bit, the average dB across the spectrum would be the same but the peaks would be less. Terry one thing the model doesn't take into account, unless I missed something, is
The spectrum shown on SCS web site: http://www.scs-ptc.com/pactor/pactor is 2.2 KHz if one ignores the -25 dB "ears". Since the IMD from most of the PACTOR III stations is worse than the -25 db (all
That is only true because neither the Commission or anyone else could have foreseen multiple tone FSK or channel equalization methods when the rules were written. That was still the case well into t
I suggest you and many others query Dave Sumner K1ZZ via k1zz@arrl.org as he is deeply involved in theInternational Amateur Radio Union (IARU) preparations for the next World Amateur Radio Conference
It looks like the change that was discussed yesterday, regarding making reflector messages FROM: rtty@contesting.com has gone into effect. The downside of this is that we can't see who the originator
I requested a short time slot from K3LR during Contest University for a presentation on RM-11708 (even something during lunch) but was told "Sorry there is no room left". Terry AB5K _________________
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped) The downside of this is that we can't see who the originator is. There are a few people on here for whom I read 100% of their posts. There are others for whom I rea
See above signature line if it works. Jay The downside of this is that we can't see who the originator is. There are a few people on here for whom I read 100% of their posts. There are others for who
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped) Jay REPLY: I think you mean Subject line, right? It does work but it seems a bit awkward. For example, how would you group replies based on subject if everybody has
There is one benefit of the change to From: field - gmail users can now see their own posts. My ISP, wildblue.net which is based on gmail, does not send my post back to me. Now that the From: field i
Also, when you reply, it doesn't go directly to the person who originated the message. Instead, it works like a Yahoo Group and is addressed back to the entire group. There is generally not good as i
It is a shame that the choice is to neuter the list software because of the members who use providers that will not accept e-mail from the list (or for whom their default e-mail behavior is to reject