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

Results:

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

Total 23 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers (score: 1): Author: Hank Garretson <w6sx@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:08:54 -0800; Cut numbers for RaTTY. We all recognize TOO for 599. So we should all send TOO instead of 599--saves at least one SHIFT character. Think of it, 163 ms saved for every RST. But there's more. Cut numbe; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00050.html (6,641 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers (score: 1): Author: "Kermit $aka Ken$ via RTTY" <rtty@contesting.com>; Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 20:35:50 -0500; Great idea! Even better, get rid of the silly TOO. Who needs it? Why shave milliseconds when you can chop them? UE, Ken, ABQJ In a message dated 1/9/2016 00:10:36 GMT Standard Time, w6sx@arrl.net wri; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00051.html (7,437 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>; Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 18:40:09 -0800; -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: Better yet, eliminate signal reports from contest exchanges. A few contests already have. Sponsors, what say you? 73, Bill W6WRT ________________________; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00052.html (7,135 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers (score: 1): Author: "Erik - K5WW" <k5ww@coyotearc.net>; Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 00:09:07 -0600; With all due respect, Bill: without signal reports in contests things would just go way TOO fast! 73, Erik - K5WW -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: Better yet, eliminate signal reports fr; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00053.html (7,972 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers (score: 1): Author: "John Barber" <john@bordertech.co.uk>; Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 07:15:46 -0500; Yes definitely get rid of 599. Do away with anything that is meaningless and doesn't contribute to contest cross-checking. Until this happens, refuse to log anyone who skips the RST when it is part o; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00054.html (8,336 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers (score: 1): Author: "Schmidt-Eutingen" <joheschmidt@gmx.de>; Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 14:31:50 +0100; Ultima ratio do not participate in contests; and you are going to save even more time; (tongue in cheek). Now seriously: I always thought ham-radio to be a hobby. If miliseconds count that much, is t; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00055.html (9,799 bytes)
7. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers (score: 1): Author: "Schmidt-Eutingen" <joheschmidt@gmx.de>; Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 14:31:01 +0100; Ultima ratio do not participate in contests; and you are going to save even more time; (tongue in cheek). Now seriously: I always thought ham-radio to be a hobby. If miliseconds count that much, is t; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00056.html (9,791 bytes)
8. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>; Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 16:03:30 -0800; -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: It's not so much that milliseconds count (although they do) but that sending 599 is pointless with RTTY. I can see some argument for sending a signal rep; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00058.html (8,629 bytes)
9. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers (score: 1): Author: Neal Campbell <nealk3nc@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:17:42 -0500; We could replace the 599 with RYRY to slow things down for the old timers.... 73 Neal Campbell Abroham Neal LLC _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com h; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00059.html (9,392 bytes)
10. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers (score: 1): Author: W3NR <w3nr@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:43:15 -0500; 73 Neal Campbell Abroham Neal LLC I'm glad I'm not an old timer..........71 is not old, I'm just getting started. Ed W3NR _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contes; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00060.html (8,669 bytes)
11. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers (score: 1): Author: "Kermit $aka Ken$ via RTTY" <rtty@contesting.com>; Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:46:11 -0500; Or "PLEASE COPY ..." AB1J In a message dated 2016-01-10 12:19:41 A.M. Coordinated Universal Ti, nealk3nc@gmail.com writes: We could replace the 599 with RYRY to slow things down for the old timers...; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00061.html (8,003 bytes)
12. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers (score: 1): Author: "Ed Muns" <ed@w0yk.com>; Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 17:01:20 -0800; I actually got that from a station as the lead-in to a verbose exchange in RU. Ed W0YK --Original Message-- From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Kermit (aka Ken) via RTTY Sent; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00062.html (8,957 bytes)
13. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers (score: 1): Author: Ron W7FIA <fia@clouddancer.com>; Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 17:34:11 -0800 (PST); Ah, the perfect signal, maybe about 50% of what you hear during a contest. When it's a shaky decode for a multiplier, it's very very nice to have a nice pointer such as 599 to sort out what's decoded; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00063.html (9,907 bytes)
14. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers (score: 1): Author: Kok Chen <rtty@w7ay.net>; Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:04:33 -0800; One approach to an RTTY contest is to send a checksum with the exchange. Even a single character checksum will be reassuring to a recipient of the exchange, especially if the checksum is computed ove; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00064.html (9,500 bytes)
15. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers (score: 1): Author: "G3YYD" <g3yyd@btinternet.com>; Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 14:29:06 -0500; If the checksum character is in error? Use another character to checksum the checksum? Or would it be easier to just send the serial number twice? Then if the 2 are different do a AGN request (shorte; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00066.html (10,664 bytes)
16. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers (score: 1): Author: Kok Chen <rtty@w7ay.net>; Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 11:51:48 -0800; Send "AGN?" of course :-). You can even automate the "AGN?", but with poor propagation, the back and forth could end up sounding like Packet Radio :-). Sending the serial number twice is a form error; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00067.html (9,734 bytes)
17. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers (score: 1): Author: Jeff Stai <wk6i.jeff@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 12:32:17 -0800; Once upon a time I designed error correcting codes for solid state disks. It was a lot of fun and I would love to jump into it again... But putting ECC onto a RTTY contest exchange seems a little to; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00068.html (11,224 bytes)
18. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers (score: 1): Author: Hank Garretson <w6sx@arrl.net>; Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 13:25:00 -0800; If the checksum character is in error? Use another character to checksum the I recommend against AGN. When confronted with AGN, far too many contesters respond with the whole exchange including RST a; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00069.html (9,481 bytes)
19. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers (score: 1): Author: Hank Garretson <w6sx@arrl.net>; Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 13:32:36 -0800; Here is something I wrote a few years back: Now a contest with serial numbers, for instance, CQ WPX RTTY. Contest Exuberantly, Hank, W6SX _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00070.html (12,904 bytes)
20. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers (score: 1): Author: "Schmidt-Eutingen" <joheschmidt@gmx.de>; Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:42:39 +0100; Hi Neal, just in case i happen to work u somehow, be sure I (87 years of age) am going to stick to your proposal ! 73 Heinz DK7UM -- Original Message -- From: "Neal Campbell" <nealk3nc@gmail.com> To:; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00076.html (10,537 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]