Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+SARTG\s+\-\s+one\s+more\s+comment\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+SARTG\s+\-\s+one\s+more\s+comment\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] SARTG - one more comment (score: 1): Author: dj3iw@t-online.de (DJ3IW Goetz); Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:55:48 -0000; Hi, without going into the pros and cons (please NO discussion) of using DX-cluster spots in RTTY contesting I want to comment on one observation. There were a high number of spots made be active con; /archives//html/RTTY/2004-08/msg00197.html (6,615 bytes)
2. RE: [RTTY] SARTG - one more comment (score: 1): Author: "Jim Martin - MM0BQI" <MM0BQI@blueyonder.co.uk>; Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:55:45 +0100; Certainly many wide and distorted signals here making large sections of the band unusable! Very hard to keep a run frequency with 40w and a low dipole possibly due to my low signal being drowned out; /archives//html/RTTY/2004-08/msg00201.html (8,893 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] SARTG - one more comment (score: 1): Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>; Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:34:58 -0400; "Jim Martin - MM0BQI" <MM0BQI@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: "Judging by signal quality and the varied, and sometimes lengthy exchanges, it would seem we need to share the 'best practice' of RTTY operating; /archives//html/RTTY/2004-08/msg00203.html (7,718 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] SARTG - one more comment (score: 1): Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@charter.net>; Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:38:48 -0700; I think one reason signals are so bad is that op's don't have the capability to monitor their own signals. Before I had the 2 radios here, I would always check with my buddy across town and make sure; /archives//html/RTTY/2004-08/msg00205.html (7,522 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]