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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+RE\:\s+MFSK\!\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] RE: MFSK! (score: 1): Author: Phil.Cooper at cwgg.cwplc.com (Phil Cooper); Date: Mon Mar 24 10:25:46 2003; Hi Joe and the group, My apologies for the tone of this email, but after nearly losing out on ST0RY to MFSK, I am feeling a bit annoyed. Not half as mush as I was yesterday lunchtime, but enough to w; /archives//html/RTTY/2003-03/msg00219.html (10,311 bytes)
2. [RTTY] RE: MFSK! (score: 1): Author: vsh at udm.net (VSH); Date: Mon Mar 24 15:00:17 2003; Hi Phil, I would add some more to this topic, last Sunday after my CQ on 14080 one guy ask (using RTTY mode) to QSY because I'm working in "MFSK ZONE" ! I answer that I don't see any reason to move o; /archives//html/RTTY/2003-03/msg00226.html (7,975 bytes)
3. [RTTY] RE: MFSK! (score: 1): Author: llindblom at juno.com (Larry L Lindblom); Date: Mon Mar 24 18:34:11 2003; During one of the RTTY contest earlier this year there was a 4 in Tennessee (I forget his call) who was guarding 14081 + or -. Based on tuning across that frequency numerous times when anyone sent a; /archives//html/RTTY/2003-03/msg00230.html (9,440 bytes)
4. [RTTY] RE: MFSK! (score: 1): Author: w4ox at bellsouth.net (Doug McDuff); Date: Mon Mar 24 19:04:53 2003; I have to contribute my +/- $0.02 here. This same "4" also approached me during a recent test while I was CQ'ing on 14078. No one was using MFSK at that time and so I asked him why I should QSY. As h; /archives//html/RTTY/2003-03/msg00231.html (10,890 bytes)
5. [RTTY] RE: MFSK! (score: 1): Author: obrienaj at netsync.net (Andrew J O'Brien); Date: Mon Mar 24 20:09:44 2003; I have no idea who the person was but I would invite you all to think that perhaps he has a valid point. I assume he knew that RTTY ops have a legal right to operate on 14080. However the MFSK folks,; /archives//html/RTTY/2003-03/msg00232.html (7,469 bytes)
6. [RTTY] RE: MFSK! (score: 1): Author: w7why at charter.net (Tom Osborne); Date: Mon Mar 24 22:09:27 2003; 14080. Hi Andy Actually, RTTY ops have the legal right to operate RTTY from 14.001 to 14.300, but that doesn't mean that they do that. We don't routinley operate in the SSB portion or the CW portion,; /archives//html/RTTY/2003-03/msg00233.html (7,967 bytes)
7. [RTTY] RE: MFSK! (score: 1): Author: ws7i at ieway.com (Jay); Date: Tue Mar 25 16:52:08 2003; Actually not in the U.S. 14.000.01 to 14.149.999 is all. You may not operate RTTY in the SSB band. ________________________________________________________________ Sent via the KillerWebMail system; /archives//html/RTTY/2003-03/msg00240.html (7,136 bytes)
8. [RTTY] RE: MFSK! (score: 1): Author: w7dpw at attbi.com (Dave W7DPW); Date: Tue Mar 25 19:50:13 2003; Lower 25 Khz is dependent upon license class... Dave W7DPW to not operate RTTY in the SSB band.; /archives//html/RTTY/2003-03/msg00241.html (7,918 bytes)
9. [RTTY] RE: MFSK! (score: 1): Author: w7ti at dslextreme.com (Bill Turner); Date: Wed Mar 26 10:34:52 2003; _________________________________________________________ Not so, Tom. In the US on 20 meters, RTTY is legal only from 14.000 to 14.150. See Part 97, section 97.305. The only HF bands where RTTY is l; /archives//html/RTTY/2003-03/msg00244.html (7,708 bytes)
10. [RTTY] RE: MFSK! (score: 1): Author: w7why at charter.net (Tom Osborne); Date: Wed Mar 26 21:40:26 2003; OK, my face is red now. A lot of you let me know I was wrong. I assumed RTTY was legal up in the SSB band as SSTV is there and it is a digital mode. I know we don't operate in that part of the band b; /archives//html/RTTY/2003-03/msg00248.html (7,622 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]