- 1. [RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting (score: 1)
- Author: "Thomas Giella KN4LF" <kn4lf@tampabay.rr.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:06:21 -0500
- Floyd et all, Yes I also see wide AFSK RTTY and PSK31 signals on the HF bands. When I politely mention same to the offending parties the response is usually hostile or indifferent at best. But I don'
- /archives//html/RTTY/2004-12/msg00279.html (10,794 bytes)
- 2. Re: [RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting (score: 1)
- Author: "Floyd Sense" <fsense@copper.net>
- Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 08:58:52 -0500
- Tom - I didn't say anything about allocations differing amongst countries, I referred to REGIONS. Here is the latest IARU band plan that I could find, and it shows the recommended band usage in the t
- /archives//html/RTTY/2005-01/msg00001.html (9,510 bytes)
- 3. Re: [RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting (score: 1)
- Author: "Thomas Giella KN4LF" <kn4lf@tampabay.rr.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 10:39:31 -0500
- Floyd et all, Happy New Year 2005 to all! Whether we are talking "regions" or countries/entities the end result is the same, differing international band allocations. Yes I propose an international R
- /archives//html/RTTY/2005-01/msg00002.html (12,463 bytes)
- 4. RE: [RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting (score: 1)
- Author: "Jim McDonald" <jim@n7us.net>
- Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 09:03:37 -0700
- Why not float these ideas for a 160 RTTY contest on the Topband reflector? Jim N7US Floyd et all, Happy New Year 2005 to all! Whether we are talking "regions" or countries/entities the end result is
- /archives//html/RTTY/2005-01/msg00003.html (13,062 bytes)
- 5. Re: [RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting (score: 1)
- Author: "Floyd Sense" <fsense@copper.net>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 08:03:07 -0500
- Tom - it's clear from your comments that you have an agenda and are hell-bent on imposing your view of how 160 operations ought to be carried out. You're making a mistake and I hope that other RTTY o
- /archives//html/RTTY/2005-01/msg00009.html (14,240 bytes)
- 6. RE: [RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting (score: 1)
- Author: "Jim McDonald" <jim@n7us.net>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 07:48:47 -0700
- As an occasional, casual RTTY contester who also enjoys DXing on 160 meters, I'd prefer not to have RTTY contests there. 160 is the most challenging band below 30 MHz due to the propagation, which re
- /archives//html/RTTY/2005-01/msg00012.html (17,626 bytes)
- 7. Re: [RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting (score: 1)
- Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 15:00:07 -0800
- KN4LF wrote: That is the second negative reference you have made about cw operators on 160. I don't see why you have a problem with them. I take it that what you would like to do is run off this "sma
- /archives//html/RTTY/2005-01/msg00019.html (8,834 bytes)
- 8. Re: [RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting (score: 1)
- Author: "Michael Furfari" <k3fh@adelphia.net>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 18:27:35 -0500
- This debate reminds me of an old Hank Williams, Jr. song which I like very much and I sing to myself whenever something starts to get under my skin: Mothers against drunk drivers The Pope is against
- /archives//html/RTTY/2005-01/msg00020.html (11,467 bytes)
- 9. Re: [RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting (score: 1)
- Author: K4SB <k4sb@bellsouth.net>
- Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:02:53 +0000
- While I agree with Jim on most of his points, the ARRL Band plan has absolutely NOTHING to do with where any mode can operate. At the same time, why could we not organize a little something above 1.9
- /archives//html/RTTY/2005-01/msg00029.html (7,634 bytes)
- 10. Re: [RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting (score: 1)
- Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>
- Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 10:00:05 -0800
- ___________________________________________________________ I think the only reason people group together there is a combination of tradition and SWR. I'm not aware of any 160m antenna that covers th
- /archives//html/RTTY/2005-01/msg00033.html (8,440 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu