Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+160\s+m\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+160\s+m\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [RTTY] 160 m (score: 1): Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>; Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 00:00:48 -0400; For the same transmitter PEP, JT65 outperforms RTTY by about 29 dB (a power ratio of 800). That will make a big difference on 160 m. 73 Kai, KE4PT Rick - WU6W ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped) There; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00140.html (9,407 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] 160 m (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 21:31:39 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped) REPLY: I would like to see some high power JT65 on 160 meters this winter. Perhaps a small segment of the band should be set aside for that? Like PSK, JT65 is norma; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00141.html (8,255 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] 160 m (score: 1): Author: "Ron Kolarik" <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>; Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 00:14:39 -0500; Bill I think I told you this before but maybe not. JT65 is a weak signal mode and not low power, run as much as you want. The EME guys are usually full limit with gain antennas. For the record I did; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00143.html (9,126 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] 160 m (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 23:25:55 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped) REPLY: The reason I brought up HP on 160 was the nature of the band. Unlike the higher bands, 160 is always "open" in the sense of E or F layer reflection, the ques; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00144.html (8,650 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]