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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+CQ\s+QRM\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] CQ QRM (score: 1): Author: "Jim McDonald" <jim@n7us.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:06:20 -0600; W2QO was having a QSO with W1ZQ on about 1809 when he was QRMed by a CW "ditter." Though I'm disappointed, I'm not really surprised. RTTY is in the ARRL band plan, but that doesn't mean we'll be acce; /archives//html/RTTY/2007-02/msg00380.html (6,720 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] CQ QRM (score: 1): Author: "Dave W7DPW" <w7dpw@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:21:01 -0800; I was printing W2QQ occasionally, nothing of W1ZQ but K7US was almost 100 Percent print when he was on. I didn't hear the CW at all, But I did hear some CW up the band a little... Just had loaded up; /archives//html/RTTY/2007-02/msg00381.html (7,757 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] CQ QRM (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>; Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:10:55 -0800; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- I've had the same experience several times. So much for the "gentleman's band". 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list; /archives//html/RTTY/2007-02/msg00432.html (7,212 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] CQ QRM (score: 1): Author: Ed <k4sb@comcast.net>; Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:04:12 +0000; Bill Turner wrote: ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:06:20 -0600, "Jim McDonald" <jim@n7us.net> wrote: W2QO was having a QSO with W1ZQ on about 1809 when he was QRMed by a CW "ditter." Though; /archives//html/RTTY/2007-02/msg00438.html (7,577 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] CQ QRM (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>; Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:33:22 -0800; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- If by "traditional frequencies" you mean 80 kHz up from the lower band edge, that would be fine with me for North America, but there is a problem with the freque; /archives//html/RTTY/2007-02/msg00460.html (7,610 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] CQ QRM (score: 1): Author: Ed <k4sb@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:12:43 +0000; Bill Turner wrote: If by "traditional frequencies" you mean 80 kHz up from the lower band edge, that would be fine with me for North America, but there is a problem with the frequency allocations for; /archives//html/RTTY/2007-02/msg00462.html (7,488 bytes)
7. Re: [RTTY] CQ QRM (score: 1): Author: Michael Keane K1MK <k1mk@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:03:58 -0500; It's a country-by-country crazy quilt. K0CKD used to publish a list of 160m allocations but the URL I have is no longer valid. Outside NA the 160m band begins no lower than 1810 kHz. In many countrie; /archives//html/RTTY/2007-02/msg00464.html (8,708 bytes)
8. Re: [RTTY] CQ QRM (score: 1): Author: Graham Ridgeway <m5aav@btinternet.com>; Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:28:57 +0000; For what it's worth. UK - The RSGB's Bandplan [ NOT Mandatory - but tell that to the Frequency Police ! ] 1.810 - 2000 1.810 - 1.838 Telegraphy 200hz BW 1.838 - 1840 Narrow Band Modes [Max BW 500hz]; /archives//html/RTTY/2007-02/msg00465.html (9,333 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]