Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Band\s+Plan\s+and\s+RTTY\s+contesting\s*$/: 19 ]

Total 19 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] Band Plan and RTTY contesting (score: 1)
Author: "Don Cassel" <ve3xd@rogers.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:11:28 -0400
On Saturday I had to deal with an interfering station on 14.090.7 telling me over and over that I was using a frequency reserved for beacons. While he may be technically correct he was wrong in causi
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-10/msg00369.html (8,326 bytes)

2. Re: [RTTY] Band Plan and RTTY contesting (score: 1)
Author: "Glenn VA3DX" <va3dx@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:31:00 -0400
Yes , I had a station signing KT5X on cw and continuously calling CQ , etc etc on 7040.0 I WAS there FIRST , however I got the impression he wanted the frequency. I persevered and he evenrually left.
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-10/msg00370.html (9,236 bytes)

3. Re: [RTTY] Band Plan and RTTY contesting (score: 1)
Author: "Don Cassel" <ve3xd@rogers.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:14:58 -0400
Don VE3XD Yes , I had a station signing KT5X on cw and continuously calling CQ , etc etc on 7040.0 I WAS there FIRST , however I got the impression he wanted the frequency. I persevered and he evenru
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-10/msg00376.html (9,950 bytes)

4. Re: [RTTY] Band Plan and RTTY contesting (score: 1)
Author: Jim McDonald <jim@n7us.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:20:06 -0700
That's the frequency of the well known, worldwide NCDXF beacon system: http://ncdxf.org/beacons.html I don't think it's asking too much for that one frequency to be spared. Jim N7US -- Original Messa
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-10/msg00377.html (9,703 bytes)

5. Re: [RTTY] Band Plan and RTTY contesting (score: 1)
Author: Jerry Flanders <jeflanders@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:47:08 -0400
That is not actually the beacon frequency, as I recall. But - how big a "guard band" should we actually allow for something like this? Do we back off far enough to make it possible to copy the beacon
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-10/msg00380.html (10,900 bytes)

6. Re: [RTTY] Band Plan and RTTY contesting (score: 1)
Author: "Don Cassel" <ve3xd@rogers.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:04:33 -0400
It's really a problem being up on all of the possible beacons you might interfere with. I don't normally operate in this area of the band but that happened to be the only clear frequency that I found
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-10/msg00381.html (13,101 bytes)

7. Re: [RTTY] Band Plan and RTTY contesting (score: 1)
Author: <k9mi@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:14:23 -0000
Jim, I don't disagree with you, but in the heat of the contest, it is easy, at least for me to see how the beacon frequency could be ignored by enthusiastic contesters. In the heat of the battle, the
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-10/msg00383.html (12,762 bytes)

8. Re: [RTTY] Band Plan and RTTY contesting (score: 1)
Author: "J. Castellano" <caste@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:19:21 +0000
In other words, some people can't tell if the band is open because there's so many stations on the air that they can't copy the beacons... 73, Julio VE3FH ____________________________________________
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-10/msg00384.html (11,719 bytes)

9. Re: [RTTY] Band Plan and RTTY contesting (score: 1)
Author: Phil Sauvey <akdxer@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
I heard this same station and my contest scratch notes tell me that I thought it was a European station sending that message. Don, I heard this as well (between 1700 & 1800z) and he was sending the m
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-10/msg00385.html (10,481 bytes)

10. Re: [RTTY] Band Plan and RTTY contesting (score: 1)
Author: "Phil Cooper" <pcooper@guernsey.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:43:48 +0100
Hi again, During JARTS, I often saw someone on RTTY sending U ARE CAUSING QRM TO THE BEACON FREQUENCY, PLEASE QSY which was sent over and over again. This was on 20m, and was sent over any exchanges
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-10/msg00388.html (9,403 bytes)

11. Re: [RTTY] Band Plan and RTTY contesting (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:50:50 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- I agree, especially since that frequency is in use 24/7 anyway. I give it a +/- 250 Hz clearance. 14099.700 however, is fair game, IMO. 73, Bill W6WRT __________
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-10/msg00391.html (8,544 bytes)

12. Re: [RTTY] Band Plan and RTTY contesting (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:50:53 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- A CW signal sent at around 20 wpm occupies a bandwidth of around 100 Hz more or less. Personally, I allow +/- 250 Hz which means a total bandwidth of 500 Hz, and
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-10/msg00392.html (8,968 bytes)

13. Re: [RTTY] Band Plan and RTTY contesting (score: 1)
Author: "Vladimir Sidorov" <vs_otw@rogers.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:54:25 -0500
Gents, I'd ask for your indulgence 'cos I gonna make a move against the official beacons' policy headline... The beacon network has been built in order to watch eventual band openings for various par
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-10/msg00393.html (9,089 bytes)

14. Re: [RTTY] Band Plan and RTTY contesting (score: 1)
Author: "Don Cassel" <ve3xd@rogers.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:56:57 -0400
Agreed also and BTW I am well aware of the 14.100 beacon frequency. 73, Don VE3XD ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- I agree, especially since that frequency is in use 24/7 anyway. I give it a +/-
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-10/msg00394.html (9,073 bytes)

15. Re: [RTTY] Band Plan and RTTY contesting (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:37:19 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- Many beacon users do not have the ability to copy RTTY. Just because the band is full of RTTY signals does not mean the band is open to a specific part of the wo
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-10/msg00411.html (8,245 bytes)

16. Re: [RTTY] Band Plan and RTTY contesting (score: 1)
Author: "J.G.Castellano" <caste@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:42:42 -0400
Sorry but that is not a valid argument, with that line of reasoning they can argue that they can't afford narrow filters to copy CW and we have to stay clear 4 or 5kHz on each side. A few months ago
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-10/msg00464.html (9,582 bytes)

17. Re: [RTTY] Band Plan and RTTY contesting (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:50:04 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- Sorry, but my sorry is sorrier than your sorry. The argument is valid. With your analogy, we would have to make room for guys with crystal sets. A +/- 250 Hz spa
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-10/msg00475.html (8,403 bytes)

18. Re: [RTTY] Band Plan and RTTY contesting (score: 1)
Author: "J.G.Castellano" <caste@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:27:32 -0400
Excellent point, I can see some value for beacons in bands that are closed many hours a day, i.e. 12m and higher frequencies but on 20m... come on give me a break. 73, Julio VE3FH or the her) _______
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-10/msg00501.html (10,899 bytes)

19. Re: [RTTY] Band Plan and RTTY contesting (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:51:27 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- 20 might be open to some part of the world nearly 24/7, but the beacons are useful when checking propagation to a particular part of the world. Frequencies below
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-10/msg00503.html (9,479 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 19
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu