Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:ve3iay@rac.ca: 54 ]

Total 54 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [RTTY] Makrothen RTTY Contest (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@rac.ca>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:56:04 -0400
According to the contest database at <http://www.rtty-contest-scene.com/index1.html>, there were 288 logs submitted in 2004 and 399 logs in 2005. Here in the Eastern time zone, you can work 8 hours
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-09/msg00237.html (7,809 bytes)

2. [RTTY] Multipliers (score: 1)
Author: ve3iay@rac.ca
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:39:52 -0400
The BARTG, EA RTTY, SARTG and JARTS contests all use call areas in JA/VE/VK/W as multipliers. WAE adds several others (ZL, ZS, PY, UA9). It appears that the idea was that people living in those count
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-07/msg00482.html (8,233 bytes)

3. Re: [RTTY] contest name from Dec 1 2001? (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@rac.ca>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:30:13 -0400
TARA RTTY Sprint. A belated thanks for the QSO! 73, Rich VE3IAY _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-07/msg00050.html (7,193 bytes)

4. Re: [RTTY] MixW on RTTY (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@rac.ca>
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 18:19:02 -0500
Actually it's not unreasonable or unexpected. MixW has a perfectly good RTTY engine of its own - I often use it as a backup to the MMTTY/N1MM combination, as it quite often does a better job of decod
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-03/msg00088.html (7,354 bytes)

5. Re: [RTTY] MixW on RTTY (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@rac.ca>
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 15:08:46 -0500
Actually, this doesn't imbed MMTTY into MixW at all - it simply calls up MMTTY as an external program. You can call up *any* program (Excel, for example) in exactly the same way. There is no transfer
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-03/msg00079.html (9,723 bytes)

6. Re: [RTTY] [CQ-Contest] 40 meters on Saturday evening (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@rac.ca>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:33:50 -0500
Many of the folks here on the rtty reflector are also on the CQ-contest reflector, but in case there are some who are not, there's a heads-up there from N6TR about what to expect on Saturday evening
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00113.html (7,432 bytes)

7. Re: [RTTY] Displaying/logging/spotting the correct FRQ using AFSK (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@rac.ca>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:09:26 -0500
An additional note: In N1MM Logger you can turn this option on or off in the Digital Interface window - it's the last item in the Setup menu in the DI window. You should turn it on for AFSK, off for
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00242.html (9,753 bytes)

8. Re: [RTTY] dashes vs. no dashes (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@rac.ca>
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 10:52:20 -0500
The situation with UOS is actually more complicated. There are two different places where you can select UOS in MMTTY, one on the main window that only affects receive, and one under the Options/TX t
/archives//html/RTTY/2006-01/msg00005.html (12,042 bytes)

9. Re: [RTTY] Telnet/Packet and the RTTY RU (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@rac.ca>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:07:27 -0500
Oh, don't get me wrong, Dennis. I think the rules for multi-ops in the Roundup are perfectly *fair*, that's not the issue. The point for me is that they result in a contest that can be *boring* for m
/archives//html/RTTY/2005-12/msg00137.html (15,628 bytes)

10. Re: [RTTY] Telnet/Packet and the RTTY RU (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@rac.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:38:36 -0500
Under the present rules, regardless of whether you agree with them or not, there are only two categories: 1. Single operator - only one person, NO relief operators, NO helpers in the shack, NO helper
/archives//html/RTTY/2005-12/msg00107.html (9,012 bytes)

11. Re: [RTTY] ARRL RTTY Round-Up Rules - QUESTIONs about band changes,etc. (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@rac.ca>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:00:47 -0500
Thanks for pointing that out, Barry. Note that "the primary use of a second radio..." WOULD BE "...to get additional QSOs" - the point is that the rules do not permit such a second radio. I'm not sur
/archives//html/RTTY/2005-12/msg00060.html (9,096 bytes)

12. Re: [RTTY] ARRL RTTY Round-Up Rules - QUESTIONs about band changes,etc. (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@rac.ca>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:16:33 -0500
Re band changes and categories, I read the rules the same way Dave does, and draw a couple of other conclusions (these are *not* complaints, just observations): If you are a single-op and use packet,
/archives//html/RTTY/2005-12/msg00052.html (7,438 bytes)

13. Re: [RTTY] STDYKN ?? (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@rac.ca>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:05:42 -0500
Uh, not quite, Phil. Right-clicking in MTTY will change between FIGS and LTRS case, so STDYKN would become '5$6(, which is not very helpful. Converting between FIGS and LTRS is easy; the trouble with
/archives//html/RTTY/2005-12/msg00038.html (8,291 bytes)

14. Re: [RTTY] AFSK Splatter (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@rac.ca>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 10:18:50 -0400
I would suggest neither. They should both be set so as to distribute the gain to avoid overdriving (audio harmonics or IMD) or excessive noise-to-signal ratio in any one stage. Don't run your sound c
/archives//html/RTTY/2005-10/msg00280.html (9,105 bytes)

15. Re: [RTTY] Wow! check out this USB to Serial adapter (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@rac.ca>
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 15:57:06 -0400
Just a caveat, Charlie: Dave AA6YQ mentioned rotor control, radio control, CW and TNCs, but he did NOT mention a subject of particular interest on this reflector, namely direct FSK keying. Before pur
/archives//html/RTTY/2005-10/msg00083.html (11,058 bytes)

16. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Sweeps (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@rac.ca>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:55:10 -0400
As further support for Bob's point, note that many of the contests that support all three modes vary their rules between CW/SSB and RTTY in recognition of the different size of the community: WAE (ev
/archives//html/RTTY/2005-09/msg00229.html (9,497 bytes)

17. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Sweeps (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@rac.ca>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:26:18 -0400
All this talk wishing there was a North American RTTY contest that low power stations could be competitive in, and not one mention of the NAQP RTTY? Is everyone suffering from amnesia? 73, Rich VE3IA
/archives//html/RTTY/2005-09/msg00220.html (7,671 bytes)

18. Re: [RTTY] Confusion (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@rac.ca>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:23:49 -0400
John, It looks as if you were submitting a log for the NAQP RTTY. However, the date of 2005-03-13 in the error message was the date of the last NA RTTY Sprint. That, together with the "serial" number
/archives//html/RTTY/2005-07/msg00221.html (8,167 bytes)

19. Re: [RTTY] Keyboard Won't Send All the Letters? (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@rac.ca>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 23:51:39 -0500
By any chance does the label on one of your macros contain "&P" (e.g. "S&P Exch")? If so, the label on the macro probably won't show the & on the screen but the P will be underlined. If this is your
/archives//html/RTTY/2005-03/msg00021.html (7,538 bytes)

20. Re: [RTTY] Green Keys vs. PSK31 - One man's opinion (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@rac.ca>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:40:39 -0500
Ian White wrote: The difference between PSK and RTTY operating seems to be a 'cultural' thing. Lots of PSK operators are not into DXing and contesting, but into slow-paced ragchewing involving very l
/archives//html/RTTY/2005-01/msg00250.html (10,877 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]

This search system is powered by Namazu