Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+ARRL\s+To\s+QSY\s+To\s+1807\.500\s+KC\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+ARRL\s+To\s+QSY\s+To\s+1807\.500\s+KC\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] ARRL To QSY To 1807.500 KC (score: 1): Author: "Thomas Giella KN4LF" <flcyclone@tampabay.rr.com>; Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:28:50 -0500; Hello Joe, I was hoping that you would pay me the courtesy of responding back about my concern over the plan for W1AW to QSY from 1817.500 kc to 1807.500 kc, right on top of the weak digital signal P; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-02/msg00440.html (10,055 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] ARRL To QSY To 1807.500 KC (score: 1): Author: "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner@arrl.org>; Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 12:05:37 -0500; This was posted on the ARRL Web site earlier this morning. Thanks for your input. 73, David Sumner, K1ZZ W1AW 160-meter frequency change put on hold (Mar 1, 2006) -- QRX on that W1AW QSY! Maxim Memor; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-03/msg00021.html (12,512 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] ARRL To QSY To 1807.500 KC (score: 1): Author: "Dave" <aa6yq@ambersoft.com>; Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 00:57:08 -0500; The absence of "and we checked the bandplan" from the process you describe below is both glaring and ominous. Conformance to voluntary bandplans is the foundation of the ARRL's claim (in RM-11306) th; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-03/msg00026.html (13,610 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] ARRL To QSY To 1807.500 KC (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>; Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 07:02:38 -0800; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I notice the 160 meter bandplan does not even mention any DX window at all. Between this glaring omission and the 40 meter RTTY DX; /archives//html/RTTY/2006-03/msg00048.html (8,765 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]