Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:k3mm@verizon.net: 71 ]

Total 71 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [RTTY] Suggestion for upcoming RTTY Roundup (score: 1)
Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 15:15:16 -0500
For slower paced contests that may be fine, but unless you send a new shift character before each character group, many of us will unshift. If you do it properly by at least shifting (let alone unshi
/archives//html/RTTY/2005-12/msg00357.html (12,345 bytes)

2. Re: [RTTY] Suggestion for upcoming RTTY Roundup (score: 1)
Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:38:08 -0500
Oh, good point! Yes, definitely if you are separating say the 599 from the QTH or something else that contains letters, use a space or even a new line if conditions are tough. I was only thinking abo
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00010.html (9,441 bytes)

3. Re: [RTTY] Suggestion for upcoming RTTY Roundup (score: 1)
Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:44:29 -0500
Wouldn't it be: TOOAPTAPTAPT ? (The dash is a shifted A if I remember correctly) Most of us recognize the correct numbers in this case are the ones directly above the letter keys for what appears on
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00011.html (8,289 bytes)

4. Re: [RTTY] rtty is getting too easy (score: 1)
Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 23:24:19 -0500
Actually, it seems to me that the vast majority of RTTY operators...and even PSK ops have gotten much better in the last couple of years. There will always be a few boneheads, but we know how to deal
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00104.html (8,790 bytes)

5. 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)

6. Re: [RTTY] Help me decide between two rigs (score: 1)
Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:22:10 -0500
I'd probably choose the Pro 3, even tho I've never even used one. The MP's are getting a bit long in the tooth and require a lot of additional filters and mods to make them perform well. I believe Ya
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00024.html (9,278 bytes)

7. [RTTY] RITTY keygen for version 4 needed (score: 1)
Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 18:47:16 -0500
I don't wish to offend anyone here, but since K6STI is no longer providing any support for his ham software, I'm in need of a license key for my club call so I can continue to use my legally-purchase
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00065.html (6,883 bytes)

8. Re: [RTTY] [CQ-Contest] Filed Day operations on digital??? (score: 1)
Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:58:01 -0500
I spearheaded the W3AO digital operation last year and it's actually become a significant part of our score. PSK is where it's at and the operators seem to have gotten much better about "contest mode
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00177.html (8,572 bytes)

9. [RTTY] K3MM SOHP WPX RTTY report (score: 1)
Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:18:50 -0500
CQ WW RTTY WPX Contest Call: K3MM Operator(s): K3MM Station: N3HBX Class: SOAB HP QTH: MD Operating Time (hrs): 30 Radios: SO2R Summary: Band QSOs Pts -- 80: 313 1096 40: 602 2662 20: 702 1841 15: 38
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00184.html (8,829 bytes)

10. [RTTY] FW: [N1MM] Re: Exchange Confirmation & other bad stuff (score: 1)
Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:31:47 -0500
Yeah, I tried running MMTTY in parallel for a while and it wasn't even close most of the time. I was just using the stock settings, so it may require a bunch of tweaks to make it work better. I used
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00190.html (9,708 bytes)

11. Re: [RTTY] [CQ-Contest] Filed Day operations on digital??? (score: 1)
Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:14:18 -0500
As long as you have enough isolation between antennas you are fine. Keep em lined up end to end and separated a bit and it should be fine. e. It is hard to envision the PSK users interfering with CW
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00251.html (8,220 bytes)

12. Re: [RTTY] Station upgrade (score: 1)
Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:05:35 -0500
I don't know about the FT840, but the TS4x0 is really a lousy contest radio. The worst part is the noisy synthesizer, and if you overdrive in AFSK...gawd! Instead of running high power, get a couple
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00324.html (9,697 bytes)

13. Re: [RTTY] Station upgrade (score: 1)
Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:08:43 -0500
Outlaw AFSK? Maybe dirty AFSK, but it's the only way to fly AFAIC. S&P in NET/Autotune TX mode saves a lot of time and you are on exactly the right frequency when you answer. How about PSK? You cant
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00361.html (10,790 bytes)

14. Re: [RTTY] Station upgrade (score: 1)
Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:27:49 -0500
What IF is the DSP filtering in? Unless it's in the second, it's at a severe disadvantage to a crystal filter in that stage. I've yet to hear of a ham radio that didn't benefit from crystal filters..
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00362.html (10,183 bytes)

15. Re: [RTTY] Station upgrade (score: 1)
Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:05:16 -0500
Uhh, yeah...old fashioned! The diode cap thing went out with the analog VFO! For me that was the TS830...a fine analog radio and the best contest radio of it's decade! Ty K3MM _____ Hello Ty, Call me
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00369.html (12,869 bytes)

16. Re: [RTTY] K4WW (score: 1)
Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:36:48 -0500
Exactly right, Ed. A pregnant pause maybe, but anything more than a few seconds is fair game. However, I caution you to be sure that the station wasn't just working a weak one you couldn't hear. I kn
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00380.html (9,175 bytes)

17. Re: [RTTY] K4WW (score: 1)
Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:21:52 -0500
That's pretty funny...I've actually done that! Sneezed and moved the knob! I usually store my run frequency in the second VFO just in case, but I don't always catch it! Hi! 73, Ty K3MM Perhaps it was
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00384.html (8,106 bytes)

18. Re: [RTTY] How about a 160m RTTY High Speed Sprint? (was RTTY on160Meters) (score: 1)
Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 02:01:53 -0500
Do you get to rework stations? I think you'll run out of stations to work pretty quick otherwise... How about including 40 and 80? ...or at least 80? 0200Z is probably way too early for the left coas
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00423.html (10,977 bytes)

19. 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)

20. 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