Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+uh\,\s+what\s+about\s+spectrum\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+uh\,\s+what\s+about\s+spectrum\?\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [RTTY] uh, what about spectrum? (score: 1): Author: Jeff Stai WK6I <wk6i@twistedoak.com>; Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:36:00 -0800; I see I need to clarify... 1. During the recent RU I made contacts between 3520-3525, which is the only place that JAs may operate RTTY on 80. If the ARRL proposal is adopted, you won't be making sim; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00366.html (11,003 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] uh, what about spectrum? (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>; Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:14:41 -0800; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Suppose we RTTY'ers abandon the 170 Hz shift and use something narrower? Something that would fit in the proposed 200 Hz sub-band?; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00372.html (9,995 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] uh, what about spectrum? (score: 1): Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:48:11 -0500; I wouldn't have a problem with this type of spectrum division, but as you say, it's going to cause a lot of problems unless it's a world-wide thing. Until the rest of the world abandons 40M broadcast; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00375.html (11,610 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] uh, what about spectrum? (score: 1): Author: Mike <k4gmh@arrl.net>; Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:10:58 -0500; Hello Jeff, Reading the August 10, 2004, "Planned ARRL Petition to the FCC to Regulate Subbands by Bandwidth", and it says: * At the present time, RTTY and data emissions are permitted by FCC rule th; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00378.html (15,508 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] uh, what about spectrum? (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>; Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:00:00 -0800; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Shift is not the same as bandwidth, as the mathematicians among us will be quick to point out. RTTY is a form of FM, and FM produce; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00379.html (9,982 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] uh, what about spectrum? (score: 1): Author: Mike <k4gmh@arrl.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 06:59:57 -0500; Hello Bill, Thanks for pointing it out. That's why I put it as a question. 73, Mike, K4GMH _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contestin; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00381.html (10,550 bytes)
7. Re: [RTTY] uh, what about spectrum? (score: 1): Author: Michael Keane K1MK <k1mk@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:44:27 -0500; The petition for rulemaking <http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518181567> defines bandwidth to be the necessary bandwidth as that term is defined in Part; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00382.html (7,443 bytes)
8. Re: [RTTY] uh, what about spectrum? (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:13:58 -0600; So if we changed shift to 125 Hz, assuming that still allows 45.45 Baud, we'd be able to transmit right to the bottom of the band, right? -- Peter Laws | N5UWY/9 | plaws0 gmail | Travel by Train! "Th; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00385.html (7,780 bytes)
9. Re: [RTTY] uh, what about spectrum? (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <k4ik@subich.com>; Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:59:06 -0500; Fro: Peter Laws: If you are going to change shift, why not make it 45 Hz or even 22.5 Hz (minimum shift keying) as advocated by JE3HHT? 170 Hz based on reducing the shift from 850 (170 = 850/5) as de; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00387.html (8,372 bytes)
10. Re: [RTTY] uh, what about spectrum? (score: 1): Author: Mike <k4gmh@arrl.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:01:38 -0500; Hello Bill, The more I thought about it, I'm not so sure about the sidebands being a problem when looking at the 200 Hz bandwidth limit. You will always have sidebands, it's a matter of how far down; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00388.html (11,803 bytes)
11. Re: [RTTY] uh, what about spectrum? (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>; Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:05:47 -0800; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That would appear to be correct. The question, however, is do we want to? The point of the revised band plan is to reduce or elimin; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00389.html (7,754 bytes)
12. Re: [RTTY] uh, what about spectrum? (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>; Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:11:37 -0800; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Just powered it up for the first time about 20 minutes ago. No RF yet, just DC, but it sat there and idled at 160 mA, 3200 on the p; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00390.html (9,816 bytes)
13. Re: [RTTY] uh, what about spectrum? (score: 1): Author: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>; Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:15:22 -0800; Neccessary bandwidth is that is required for you to transmit and receive an RTTY signal. How much must a signal be down at the bandwidth limits under the new proposed rules? For today's 170 Hz, 45 ba; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00391.html (9,360 bytes)
14. Re: [RTTY] uh, what about spectrum? (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:04:22 -0600; No, it does not: "The petition recommends what the ARRL calls 'a shift in regulatory philosophy' to encourage and enable development and refinement of digital techniques and advanced technologies." I; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00394.html (8,723 bytes)
15. Re: [RTTY] uh, what about spectrum? (score: 1): Author: Michael Keane K1MK <k1mk@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:03:46 -0500 (EST); In this case what's important is that necessary bandwith (as this term is defined elsewhere in the FCC rules) is the bandwidth that appears in the table of authorized modes under the proposed rules.; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00395.html (9,379 bytes)
16. Re: [RTTY] uh, what about spectrum? (score: 1): Author: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>; Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:34:56 -0800; The problem is that the latter definition does not necessarily mean that the 1% power is maintained. A poor keying waveshape in an FSK transmitter can lead to a much wider (as defined by 1% power) si; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00396.html (9,007 bytes)
17. Re: [RTTY] uh, what about spectrum? (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>; Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:22:16 -0800; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You're right. I was referring to my take on it. I have a lot of company, too. Bill, W6WRT _________________________________________; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00398.html (8,180 bytes)
18. Re: [RTTY] uh, what about spectrum? (score: 1): Author: Michael Keane K1MK <k1mk@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:16:17 -0500; Maintaining it is covered by a different rule. that would cause one's signal to exceed the necessary bandwidth are not presently allowed and nothing being proposed would change that. §97.307(a); /archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00403.html (10,069 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]