Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Comments\s+on\s+TX5C\s+RTTY\s+Operations\s*$/: 23 ]

Total 23 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] Comments on TX5C RTTY Operations (score: 1)
Author: Dick Kriss <aa5vu@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:18:11 -0500
On 11-March-08 the TX5C operation came up on 20 meter RTTY and was signing with "UP EU" and it seemed to be going well for a long time. When the operator changed to "UP NA", it became a total mess. U
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00090.html (8,883 bytes)

2. Re: [RTTY] Comments on TX5C RTTY Operations (score: 1)
Author: "Dick-w0raa" <w0raa@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:30:47 -0600
Well, said Dick. Sadly, many US operators just can't seem to understand that they are "always" operating split. But they continue to call on the transmit frequency. I realize that some just forget to
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00091.html (10,773 bytes)

3. Re: [RTTY] Comments on TX5C RTTY Operations (score: 1)
Author: "Nelson Moyer" <ku0a@mchsi.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:45:04 -0500
Speaking of RTTY 'greenies' (and not the check marks in the online log), FO0AAA was my very first ever RTTY QSO. I was using an FT-707 with the FV-707DM, the PK232MBX, and a Macintosh IIsi computer a
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00092.html (10,654 bytes)

4. Re: [RTTY] Comments on TX5C RTTY Operations (score: 1)
Author: Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 <faunt@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:46:49 -0400 (EDT)
Me, If it's a pileup, I'd prefer you guys to spread out and let me find you. All it takes is two of you tail-ending to slow things down. I'm ALWAYS looking for clear stations. Optimally, you'd be wh
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00093.html (8,290 bytes)

5. Re: [RTTY] Comments on TX5C RTTY Operations (score: 1)
Author: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:27:28 -0700
I think most spots are real, but they tell you what has happened and not what is happening. With the TX5C 30m RTTY one evening, I was watching a (really loud) local station always lagging a kc or two
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00094.html (11,555 bytes)

6. Re: [RTTY] Comments on TX5C RTTY Operations (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:02:58 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- You might want to cut 'em a teensy bit of slack on this. There are certain software programs that will UNDO split when clicking on a different spot and then retu
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00095.html (8,298 bytes)

7. Re: [RTTY] Comments on TX5C RTTY Operations (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:08:36 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- Which strategy to use depends entirely on the DX operator and the size of the pileup. When there are only a few stations calling, most DX ops will listen on just
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00096.html (7,905 bytes)

8. Re: [RTTY] Comments on TX5C RTTY Operations (score: 1)
Author: "Phil Cooper" <pcooper@guernsey.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:09:32 -0500
Hi all, Trying to work out where the DX is listening is the real "black art" of getting a contact! I think it boils down to two seperate scenarios: First is those that have big beams and the power to
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00097.html (11,812 bytes)

9. Re: [RTTY] Comments on TX5C RTTY Operations (score: 1)
Author: Jerry Flanders <jeflanders@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:57:47 -0400
I can't see any need for a DE in either a contest or DX run situation. I can't imagine how it can contribute positively to the objective. Ragchew, yes. Otherwise, no. BUT - I make sure there is a spa
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00098.html (8,757 bytes)

10. Re: [RTTY] Comments on TX5C RTTY Operations (score: 1)
Author: "Phil Cooper" <pcooper@guernsey.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:25:35 -0500
Hi Jerry, I am still unsure about the use of the DE. Some software, especially contest software such as Writelog and N1MM seem to be able to cope without it quite neatly. BUT, I am not so sure whethe
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00099.html (8,695 bytes)

11. Re: [RTTY] Comments on TX5C RTTY Operations (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:27:35 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- The reason for the "DE" is that some software uses it to trigger a "capture" mode, where pressing a key will grab the call and put it into the entry window. 73,
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00100.html (8,488 bytes)

12. Re: [RTTY] Comments on TX5C RTTY Operations (score: 1)
Author: "Gordon Bousman" <gbousman@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:19:35 -0700
On Wednesday, I was trying to contact TX5C on 20 Meters for 1-/2 hours. It was simply maddening to keep seeing people calling on his transmit frequency. I counted 22 hams (I started writing down call
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00101.html (9,601 bytes)

13. Re: [RTTY] Comments on TX5C RTTY Operations (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:14:17 -0700
Hi Dick If more guys would just spend some time listening and not jumping right in and start calling, it'd be a lot better. I worked them on 20 tonight with about 5 calls. I listened until I found wh
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00102.html (9,100 bytes)

14. Re: [RTTY] Comments on TX5C RTTY Operations (score: 1)
Author: MIKEHAACK@aol.com
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:06:37 EDT
I'm not sure which one I find more amusing. The folks calling the DX on their transmit frequency Or The other folks who take time away from their "busting the pileup" to correct them. Lets see, someo
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00103.html (8,812 bytes)

15. Re: [RTTY] Comments on TX5C RTTY Operations (score: 1)
Author: "Nelson Moyer" <ku0a@mchsi.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:33:19 -0500
OK, I confess, I transmitted on TX5C once by accident after taking a break from the 30 meter RTTY pileup to check other bands for propagation and forgetting I had disabled split mode in the process.
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00104.html (10,324 bytes)

16. Re: [RTTY] Comments on TX5C RTTY Operations (score: 1)
Author: "Don" <ac7zg@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:31:22 -0700
Tonight on 40m RTTY, 2 calls and I am in the log with a RTTY QSO with 100W and a vertical with heavy callers around. I used the same strategy you mentioned. (and it worked for CW on 160m (5 calls), 8
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00105.html (11,291 bytes)

17. Re: [RTTY] Comments on TX5C RTTY Operations (score: 1)
Author: Gedking@aol.com
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:42:00 EDT
I've had busted QSO's because of dang policemen. ED K8OT **It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) ____________________
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00106.html (7,861 bytes)

18. Re: [RTTY] Comments on TX5C RTTY Operations (score: 1)
Author: mikehaack@aim.com
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:06:24 -0400
I'm not sure which one I find more amusing. The folks calling the DX on their transmit frequency Or The other folks who take time away from their "busting the pileup" to correct them. Lets see, someo
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00107.html (9,444 bytes)

19. Re: [RTTY] Comments on TX5C RTTY Operations (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:43:11 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- Be careful who you get mad at. This is a favorite technique of jammers... using a real callsign but not their own. Guys who have made an honest mistake with the
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00108.html (9,523 bytes)

20. Re: [RTTY] Comments on TX5C RTTY Operations (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:53:10 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- I will sometimes send the "UP UP UP" message, but only once or twice, and only AFTER I have the DX in the log. I don't "take time away" to send it. And most impo
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00109.html (9,098 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu