Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+RM\-11708\,\s+the\s+\"other\s+side\"\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+RM\-11708\,\s+the\s+\"other\s+side\"\s*$/: 24 ]

Total 24 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side" (score: 1): Author: Michael Rapp <mdrapp@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:02:16 -0600; Hi all, Many amateur radio operators in my area, 0-20 miles from the Gulf of Mexico, are heavily involved in emergency communications. Indeed, my local club and the Communications Unit Leader of our; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00057.html (9,096 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side" (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws@plaws.net>; Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:17:20 -0600; Here we go. "We need it for disasters!" Unlikely, but let's pretend. How long does it take to send a 1 kB message with the proprietary Pactor 3 protocol (or name your poison)? How long does it take t; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00058.html (8,994 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side" (score: 1): Author: Michael Rapp <mdrapp@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:18:14 -0600; Wow, I need to learn how to edit. I meant ...."support RM-11708" in the second sentence and the word comments when I wrote filings in the third. -- /*/-=[Michael]-=/*/ _______________________________; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00059.html (9,756 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side" (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@wildblue.net>; Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 08:36:15 -0800; In a real emergency, just use voice. No special equipment required, fast and effective, less battery power, anyone can copy. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ RTTY mailin; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00060.html (7,296 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side" (score: 1): Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>; Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 12:02:31 -0500; Bill This one is in the "let's get serious" category. I've handled several thousand of pieces of message traffic by voice in ONE of our hurricane emergencies in Florida. I mean voice messages *copied; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00061.html (9,043 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side" (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 14:47:02 -0500; No, the "get serious" issue with emergency communications is that there is *no need* for PACTOR III or PACTOR IV on *HF* for EMMCOMM. In every major emergency - including Superstorm Sandy - the long; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00062.html (11,063 bytes)
7. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side" (score: 1): Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>; Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:17:06 -0500; Joe, Let's let the EMMCOMM people speak for themselves regarding the need, or not, for PACTOR-3 or -4 on HF. My experience supports the need for those digital modes. My wife, a ham who's volunteered; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00063.html (12,399 bytes)
8. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side" (score: 1): Author: John Becker <w0jab@big-river.net>; Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 14:33:26 -0600; On 12/11/2013 1:47 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote in part No, the "get serious" issue with emergency communications is that there is *no need* for PACTOR III or PACTOR IV on *HF* for EMMCOMM. John, W0JAB; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00064.html (8,234 bytes)
9. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side" (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:00:38 -0500; Kai, I had more than 40 years experience with Emcomm - was one of the HF participants in the original ARRL/TAPR STA concerning automatic control on HF - have experience as a "First Responder" with th; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00065.html (15,458 bytes)
10. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side" (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:07:14 -0500; No, that's a *fact*. Show me *one* emergency in the US where long haul communications was disrupted to the point that more than one VHF/UHF link was required to reach the nearest working long haul te; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00066.html (10,424 bytes)
11. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side" (score: 1): Author: John Becker <w0jab@big-river.net>; Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:16:17 -0600; No, that's a *fact*. Show me *one* emergency in the US where long haul communications was disrupted to the point that more than one VHF/UHF link was required to reach the nearest working long haul te; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00067.html (9,564 bytes)
12. 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)
13. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side" (score: 1): Author: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>; Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 13:38:20 -0800; If all this is really just about EMCOMM, there is a simple logical solution -- only allow wide bandwidths during drills and real emergencies. 73 Chen, W7AY ___________________________________________; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00069.html (9,083 bytes)
14. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side" (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@wildblue.net>; Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 13:44:48 -0800; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped) REPLY: Seriously, I did. If you have time to set up Pactor 4 stations at both ends, I would suggest the emergency is pretty much over and you're into pretty much ro; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00071.html (9,238 bytes)
15. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side" (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:55:27 -0500; Missouri has nothing on Southeastern Ohio and West Virginia as far as hills and holes. Even in those areas, properly located VHF/UHF nodes are more than sufficient to link an emergency area to the ne; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00072.html (10,670 bytes)
16. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side" (score: 1): Author: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>; Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 14:01:03 -0800; If I could, I will go park at 14071.5 kHz and send SOS in PSK31, or SOS in *very* slow morse, so it appears on a PSK31 op's waterfall. 73 Chen, W7AY _______________________________________________ RT; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00073.html (9,293 bytes)
17. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side" (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@wildblue.net>; Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 14:09:01 -0800; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped) REPLY: Instead of voice? Surely you jest. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contesti; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00074.html (9,220 bytes)
18. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side" (score: 1): Author: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>; Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 14:30:30 -0800; No, seriously. For two reasons, (1) PSK31 has far better intelligibility than an SSB signal in a 2.4 kHz equivalent noise bandwidth (we are talking about 1 watt vs 200 watt type of difference), and (; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00075.html (9,568 bytes)
19. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side" (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws@plaws.net>; Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:54:55 -0600; Oh, me too! There are WAY too many wannabe law enforcement/firefighter/paramedic/dispatcher wannabes already who truly believe that when The Big One hits that all the public safety and commercial com; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00076.html (11,953 bytes)
20. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side" (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@wildblue.net>; Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:38:53 -0800; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped) signal in a 2.4 kHz equivalent noise bandwidth (we are talking about 1 watt vs 200 watt type of difference), and (2) 14071.5 has lots of "eyeballs" on it. REPLY: In; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00077.html (9,849 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]