Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+How\s+about\s+a\s+160m\s+RTTY\s+High\s+Speed\s+Sprint\?\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [RTTY] How about a 160m RTTY High Speed Sprint? (score: 1)
Author: "Robert Chudek" <k0rc@citlink.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:56:51 -0600
Okay, that's twice in one evening... C.R.S. "P.S. ....Also, a bug was revealed in the WF1B software at the higher speed. Ray had to fix something, I don't remember the particulars....." The bug that
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00414.html (7,056 bytes)

2. Re: [RTTY] How about a 160m RTTY High Speed Sprint? (score: 1)
Author: "Robert Chudek" <k0rc@citlink.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:33:02 -0600
Ty, you're probably right regarding running out of stations to work if it's limited to 160 meters. But I really like the idea of making it an exclusive 160-meter event. It keeps the participants from
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00425.html (12,918 bytes)

3. Re: [RTTY] How about a 160m RTTY High Speed Sprint? (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 05:15:20 -0500
"run it similar to the old Novice Roundup days... instead of one 4-hour shot, spread it out" WOW....Novice Roundup...what a pleasant memory! Not necessarily for me, but for my son, who was 10, at the
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00426.html (8,624 bytes)

4. Re: [RTTY] How about a 160m RTTY High Speed Sprint? (score: 1)
Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 00:11:22 -0500
It either needs to be shorter...maybe 2 hours, or allow reworks after a certain period of time or number of contacts (time probably better and keeps away the "not yet" messages) I'm against stretchin
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-03/msg00000.html (11,862 bytes)

5. Re: [RTTY] How about a 160m RTTY High Speed Sprint? (score: 1)
Author: "Robert Chudek" <k0rc@citlink.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 00:14:08 -0600
After sleeping on my 5-day event idea, I agree that it sucks... So I've scratched that... On the other hand, I think two hours is a little too short... If the contest was for 4 hours, you can get som
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-03/msg00002.html (8,850 bytes)

6. Re: [RTTY] How about a 160m RTTY High Speed Sprint? (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:32:22 -0800
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maybe it's just me, but working the same station over and over is a complete waste of time. The time spent working that guy is time
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-03/msg00004.html (7,611 bytes)

7. Re: [RTTY] How about a 160m RTTY High Speed Sprint? (score: 1)
Author: "Robert Chudek" <k0rc@citlink.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 12:39:34 -0600
Yup, it's just you Bill... :-) I do believe Ty is correct that we would run out of RTTY stations to work on 160 meters pretty fast. I would go watch paint dry instead of sit in front of the radio wit
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-03/msg00011.html (9,088 bytes)

8. Re: [RTTY] How about a 160m RTTY High Speed Sprint? (score: 1)
Author: dezrat@copper.net
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 22:56:44 -0000
Well, if I had a choice between working the same station on the same band over and over or watching paint dry, I guess it would depend mostly on the color of the paint. Bill, W6WRT __________________
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-03/msg00016.html (7,758 bytes)

9. Re: [RTTY] How about a 160m RTTY High Speed Sprint? (score: 1)
Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:15:56 -0500
How about just making it 80 and 160? That way you can pass from 80 to 160 and vice versa....for 4 hours... Otherwise just 160 and make it 2 hrs. Another idea I had for a contest would be an all digit
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-03/msg00018.html (10,235 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu