Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:w0mu@w0mu.com: 220 ]

Total 220 documents matching your query.

141. Re: [RTTY] W1AW/0 Colorado Operating Schedule May 21-27 (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 23:07:29 -0600
New schedule has been posted. A number of us are filling holes where we can. I have been spotting myself so if you see w0mu spotting w1aw/0, I will be the op. I am using MMVARI with the multichannel
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-05/msg00163.html (8,710 bytes)

142. Re: [RTTY] ARRL 2nd Century Campaign reply (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 17:53:05 -0600
Not to bash the ARRL........ Everyone understands why we are having the 100 year ARRL celebration right? Just think of all the new awards that people will be applying for and all the LOTW credits. I
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-05/msg00178.html (9,370 bytes)

143. Re: [RTTY] W1AW portables on JT65 (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 21:50:11 -0600
We just finished with Colorado. I would say it would depend on the band and how many ops you have doing digital. I don't have our final numbers but I could have worked lots more on RTTY. I personally
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-05/msg00195.html (8,135 bytes)

144. Re: [RTTY] W1AW portables on JT65 (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 07:49:08 -0600
I have been working the W1/W2 stations with my 80m dipole and 500 watts. The lowbands are going to be much more challenging now that we are seeing summer conditions. Mike W0MU Ed W0YK Since this is t
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-05/msg00198.html (8,818 bytes)

145. Re: [RTTY] W1AW portables on JT65 (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 17:05:29 -0600
On 160.............. Mike W0MU Mike W0MU On 5/28/2014 10:49 PM, Ed Muns wrote: I don't think JT65 makes sense unless the RTTY rate drops way off. OTOH, there is typically more JT65 on 160m than RTTY.
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-05/msg00202.html (10,073 bytes)

146. Re: [RTTY] QRM to W1AW/0 (MO) RTTY (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 22:35:15 -0600
I see where one way bulletins are allowed. I do not see anywhere in the rules that allow the ARRL or anyone else to just fire up on top of an in use frequency. It one entity is allowed, doesn't that
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00005.html (8,466 bytes)

147. Re: [RTTY] QRM to W1AW/0 (MO) RTTY (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 23:01:56 -0600
Does anyone even copy these bulletins anymore. There is no way to find out. In this day and age I doubt many do. Published months in advance do not allow one to break the rules. So if I publish my op
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00018.html (12,467 bytes)

148. Re: [RTTY] QRM to W1AW/0 (MO) RTTY (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 09:49:45 -0600
I never said that there was no value in the bulletins. I asked how many people actually copied them. I don't agree that any station should just be able to come up and take over a frequency. That is a
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00021.html (16,307 bytes)

149. Re: [RTTY] W1AW/KL7 any news? (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 18:31:34 -0600
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/On%20the%20Air/W1AW_2014_sked.pdf Mike W0MU I'm looking for any RTTY on 80m to complete RTTY 5BWAS. 73, Ben - WB2RHM _______________________________________________ RTT
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00029.html (7,357 bytes)

150. Re: [RTTY] QRM to W1AW/0 (MO) RTTY (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 18:37:32 -0600
Mike W0MU FCC Part 97.111(b)(6) (6) Transmissions necessary to disseminate information bulletins. Does not give them permission to own a frequency, jump on a frequency or cause interference. FCC Part
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00030.html (10,971 bytes)

151. Re: [RTTY] QRM to W1AW/0 (MO) RTTY (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 18:43:55 -0600
Agreed. After the misinformation being portrayed as the truth from the ARRL in regard to RM-11708, I am not sure if I would depend on the information being transmitted in the event of a national issu
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00031.html (16,524 bytes)

152. Re: [RTTY] QRM to W1AW/0 (MO) RTTY (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 19:25:09 -0600
I have sent a letter to K1ZZ asking for an explanation. This should be interesting. Mike W0MU What does this have to do with an ARRL Bulletin? I think Jay may be alluding to 197.113(d) [from Feb 23,
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00033.html (11,394 bytes)

153. [RTTY] Fwd: RE: ARRL W1AW Bulletin Operations (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 08:48:09 -0600
There is nothing in 97.113 a 3 iv that gives them the right to the frequency at all times. I believe these actions by W1AW are in violation of the rules. 113 a 3 iv is about paying the control op and
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00037.html (9,418 bytes)

154. [RTTY] Fwd: RE: ARRL W1AW Bulletin Operations (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 08:56:34 -0600
Mike, data modes with bandwidths of about 2.4 kHz have been in use on HF for at least 13 years. RTTY/data and phone/image have separate subbands. Changing that would be a major change. RM-11708 propo
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00038.html (11,603 bytes)

155. [RTTY] Fwd: RE: ARRL W1AW Bulletin Operations (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:02:18 -0600
FYI. Read the entire chain. Apparently, the ARRL feels that it does not need to adhere to the all the rules that the rest of us do and they effectively own or have the exclusive right to their bullet
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00041.html (14,140 bytes)

156. Re: [RTTY] Fwd: RE: ARRL W1AW Bulletin Operations (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:11:14 -0600
Paul, So I can publish a schedule and effectively claim the exclusive right to 14.195? Since it is published I can fire up without checking to see of the frequency is in use. I do not believe the FCC
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00042.html (12,807 bytes)

157. Re: [RTTY] Fwd: RE: ARRL W1AW Bulletin Operations (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:15:18 -0600
*_Willful or Malicious Interference Complaints _* Section 97.101(d) of the Commission's Rules prohibits amateur operators from willfully or maliciously interfering with or causing interference to any
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00046.html (15,865 bytes)

158. Re: [RTTY] [Gmc] Fwd: RE: ARRL W1AW Bulletin Operations (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:53:26 -0600
I believe that the ARRL went out on a limb and just assumed that it was ok to trash other amateurs. There is no specific exception that would allow them to cause willful and malicious interference to
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00051.html (20,369 bytes)

159. Re: [RTTY] Anti ARRL and Government (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:26:50 -0600
Tom, I am a life member of the ARRL. I do not have to like everything they do and I am not afraid to speak my mind. I am willing to fight for CW and RTTY and fight back against special interest and o
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00055.html (8,052 bytes)

160. Re: [RTTY] Fwd: RE: ARRL W1AW Bulletin Operations (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 11:31:06 -0600
5. Schedule your operations on at least 6 MF or HF amateur bands at times meant to maximize coverage. Hypothetical question. If W1AW can disregard the interference rule can they disregard the power r
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00057.html (9,731 bytes)

Current List: 141 - 160
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
This search system is powered by Namazu