Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Pactor\s+3\s+demo\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Pactor\s+3\s+demo\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] Pactor 3 demo (score: 1): Author: Terry <ab5k@hotmail.com>; Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:27:48 -0500; Yesterday a few of us witnessed a demonstration of Winlink using the PACTOR 3 waveform. A simple one line email was sent from a EOC center in North Texas to one of the Winlink stations in Central Tex; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00207.html (6,976 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] Pactor 3 demo (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:03:39 -0400; Prior to the start of the demonstration, at the monitoring station, we observed an existing SSB conversation going on just slightly off the frequency and a CW station calling CQ on the frequency. Aft; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00208.html (11,882 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] Pactor 3 demo (score: 1): Author: "Jim W7RY" <w7ry@centurytel.net>; Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:50:53 -0700; So then why did you deliberately cause interference to the CW station? And the SSB station for that matter? Although the SSB station was probably off shore. None the less..... 73 Jim W7RY Yesterday a; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00209.html (8,230 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] Pactor 3 demo (score: 1): Author: Terry <ab5k@hotmail.com>; Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:42:24 -0500; Jim, I would never deliberately cause interference to anyone. I was told that the EOC had planned to initiate a test message at that time and a few of us listened in as we are curious about the techn; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00210.html (9,583 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] Pactor 3 demo (score: 1): Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>; Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:09:12 -0400; There is a further "worry" that I have as digital technology marches forward. We're 50+ plus years beyond the introduction of simple amateur-RTTY, and rules have not kept pace with amateur practice.; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00211.html (14,671 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] Pactor 3 demo (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 16:52:59 -0400; So here's your precedent for pushing the wideband digital technology, voice+data or just-data to the north side of the data/phone spectrum boundary. Let D-STAR do its digital voice + data, or for tha; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00212.html (17,462 bytes)
7. Re: [RTTY] Pactor 3 demo (score: 1): Author: "Ron Kolarik" <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>; Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 16:54:16 -0500; The Region 2 band plan segregates emissions by bandwidth, application and mode. It also suggests "unattended" station use should be limited which is the actual problem. 73, Ron K0IDT piece/brand of h; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00214.html (8,463 bytes)
8. Re: [RTTY] Pactor 3 demo (score: 1): Author: John Becker <w0jab@big-river.net>; Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 17:09:13 -0500; 73, Ron K0IDT But again allow me to point out that for some time now these stations have been in their own sub band. _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00215.html (8,381 bytes)
9. Re: [RTTY] Pactor 3 demo (score: 1): Author: "Dave AA6YQ" <aa6yq@ambersoft.com>; Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 18:15:14 -0400; But again allow me to point out that for some time now these stations have been in their own sub band. granted exclusive access to any frequency or set of frequencies. Unattended stations are expect; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00216.html (9,103 bytes)
10. Re: [RTTY] Pactor 3 demo (score: 1): Author: John Becker <w0jab@big-river.net>; Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 17:32:32 -0500; Demonstrably false. Nowhere in part 97 are unattended stations in the US granted exclusive access to any frequency or set of frequencies. Unattended stations are expected to share frequencies with at; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00217.html (8,959 bytes)
11. Re: [RTTY] Pactor 3 demo (score: 1): Author: "Dave AA6YQ" <aa6yq@ambersoft.com>; Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 18:44:56 -0400; Your exact words were "But again allow me to point out that for some time now these stations have been in their own sub band." The phrase "in their own sub band" could certainly be construed as a sub; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00218.html (9,750 bytes)
12. Re: [RTTY] Pactor 3 demo (score: 1): Author: Glenn Wyant <va3dx@sympatico.ca>; Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 19:07:29 -0400; Where can I loose this thread , and get back to RTTY ? VA3DX Your exact words were "But again allow me to point out that for some time now these stations have been in their own sub band." The phrase; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00219.html (11,434 bytes)
13. Re: [RTTY] Pactor 3 demo (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 19:36:04 -0400; I believe this thread is quite important to the RTTY community and certainly deserves public disclosure at RTTY@contesting.com. After all, is not the future survival of RTTY tied directly to the abil; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00220.html (12,328 bytes)
14. Re: [RTTY] Pactor 3 demo (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 19:40:50 -0400; But again allow me to point out that for some time now these stations have been in their own sub band. No they haven't ... they have been answering callers anywhere in the band and many times "upshif; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00221.html (9,376 bytes)
15. Re: [RTTY] Pactor 3 demo (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@wildblue.net>; Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 17:49:26 -0700; Some of the posts in this thread are getting close to being a personal attack. Please keep it civil, gentlemen. 73, Bill W6WRT RTTY List Administrator at contesting.com ______________________________; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00222.html (8,487 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]