Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+SO2R\s+in\s+WPX\s+RTTY\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+SO2R\s+in\s+WPX\s+RTTY\s*$/: 19 ]

Total 19 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY (score: 1): Author: "Phil Cooper" <pcooper@guernsey.net>; Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:42:13 -0800; Hi all, Just an observation, rather than any sort of criticism, but I note that quite a few SO2R op's were VERY slow in responding to calls and exchanges during this WPX. And by slow, I mean in the o; /archives//html/RTTY/2010-02/msg00143.html (7,889 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY (score: 1): Author: Roger Cooke <g3ldi@g3ldi.co.uk>; Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:00:21 +0000; Hi Phil. Yes, I noticed a few, but I ignored them and cut them out of the log. If the other station does not respond to my call within two seconds, tough! I will work someone else! 73 de Roger, G3LDI; /archives//html/RTTY/2010-02/msg00144.html (9,803 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY (score: 1): Author: "John Barber GW4SKA" <ska@bartg.org.uk>; Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:16:47 -0800; Phil and all, It's about time someone said it. I have nothing against most of the SO2R operations and intend to run that way myself in the future. It's just a few who are really inconsiderate and are; /archives//html/RTTY/2010-02/msg00145.html (10,663 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY (score: 1): Author: "FireBrick" <w9ol@billnjudy.com>; Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:17:43 -0600; Hey....I'm a so1r (barely) and it often occurs that it takes me more than two seconds to remember which FKey I'm supposed to hit... And where on a keyboard is that FKey? Plus I nod off a lot!... ____; /archives//html/RTTY/2010-02/msg00146.html (8,958 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY (score: 1): Author: "Bill Gillenwater" <gillie@pa.net>; Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:18:10 -0500; I thing I notice, more and more, is ops that are too impatient. CQ CQ and listen for 2 seconds, or when you don't come back in a nano second they go into panic mode. Maybe slowing down is not a bad t; /archives//html/RTTY/2010-02/msg00147.html (9,990 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY (score: 1): Author: k3mm@verizon.net; Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:52:42 -0600 (CST); Well, I think you have to understand that usually in SO2R you can set up a rythym and it appears seamless. However, when someone you are working gets long winded or you need a repeat it's easy to get; /archives//html/RTTY/2010-02/msg00148.html (11,595 bytes)
7. Re: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY (score: 1): Author: Roger Cooke <g3ldi@g3ldi.co.uk>; Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:29:05 +0000; OK, maybe two seconds is a bit impatient! However, I don't think that we should support the run rate of an SO2R station by sitting looking out of the window waiting on his reply. There is another way; /archives//html/RTTY/2010-02/msg00149.html (14,146 bytes)
8. Re: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY (score: 1): Author: "Jeremy - N4JIK" <n4jik1@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:41:16 -0600; All I can say here is AMEN BROTHER! I had this happen to me so many times during this contest that I just got frustrated with the person and moved on. I was just working to give other people QSO's an; /archives//html/RTTY/2010-02/msg00151.html (11,653 bytes)
9. Re: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY (score: 1): Author: "Hank Lonberg" <kr7x1@verizon.net>; Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:33:26 -0800; G3LDI/GW4SKA/GU0SUP/K4JIK et others: You preface your statements that "this is not a criticism" and yet go ahead and couch your comments as such. As one who does indeed operate SO2R I take this as a; /archives//html/RTTY/2010-02/msg00164.html (16,807 bytes)
10. Re: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY (score: 1): Author: Daniel VE2SB <ve2sb@amsat.org>; Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:59:03 -0500; Bonsoir my friends. Phil are you shure about 10 seconds or it is 4 seconds. When you are in contest you are not at your work, relax we do contest for fun. The rtty contest is for us an opportunity to; /archives//html/RTTY/2010-02/msg00165.html (10,770 bytes)
11. Re: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY (score: 1): Author: "Jeremy - N4JIK" <n4jik1@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:23:14 -0600; Hank and the group, Correction on the callsign its N4JIK, and I wouldn't call it criticism of the SO2R mode more so I would call it an After Action Review - a moment for us to reflect on what could w; /archives//html/RTTY/2010-02/msg00167.html (21,035 bytes)
12. Re: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY (score: 1): Author: Fabi va2up <va2up@live.ca>; Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:46:00 -0500; Roger and all, I do operate so2r and try real hard not to make fellows wait for several reasons. One of them is that we often abandon a few seconds the run freq in order to work a station spotted on; /archives//html/RTTY/2010-02/msg00168.html (17,290 bytes)
13. Re: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY (score: 1): Author: "Hank Lonberg" <kr7x1@verizon.net>; Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:58:12 -0800; Jeremy: Nice of you to reply. I appreciate your comments and will attempt to try your suggestions out next test. I understand the military pay scale and your having to move around hopefully you aren'; /archives//html/RTTY/2010-02/msg00170.html (21,972 bytes)
14. Re: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY (score: 1): Author: Ian White GM3SEK <gm3sek@ifwtech.co.uk>; Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:31:26 +0000; RTTY contesting has two very different problems with slow responders. A few of them are SO2R operators who have an unexpected holdup on the other radio; but SO2R stations are still a small minority.; /archives//html/RTTY/2010-02/msg00173.html (9,039 bytes)
15. Re: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY (score: 1): Author: Roger Cooke <g3ldi@g3ldi.co.uk>; Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:52:17 +0000; Well, it looks like this topic has opened a can of worms! As has been said, it really is down to the individual which mode he uses and no-one is complaining really about the use of SO2R. I guess that; /archives//html/RTTY/2010-02/msg00174.html (10,174 bytes)
16. Re: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY (score: 1): Author: "John Barber GW4SKA" <ska@bartg.org.uk>; Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:47:23 -0800; Hank, Please don't get me wrong. You say: 'You preface your statements that "this is not a criticism" and yet go ahead and couch your comments as such.' That's nonsense. No preface from me; it was a; /archives//html/RTTY/2010-02/msg00176.html (20,270 bytes)
17. Re: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY (score: 1): Author: "RW4WZ" <rw4wz@udm.net>; Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:06:55 +0400; Henk, how You will explain me the following things. During the last RTTY WPX three times I try to call stations cqing with +20 db level and didn't get the answer. For me it is clear that those SO2R; /archives//html/RTTY/2010-02/msg00177.html (9,891 bytes)
18. Re: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY (score: 1): Author: "Hank Lonberg" <kr7x1@verizon.net>; Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:34:52 -0800; Larry: I don't know the exact answer to your question. What frequency, what region of the world was the station, what is your effective radiated power leaving the antenna. Way too many variables invo; /archives//html/RTTY/2010-02/msg00189.html (10,807 bytes)
19. Re: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY (score: 1): Author: Fabi va2up <va2up@live.ca>; Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:02:32 -0500; Larry, this practice is 'no good' in the first place because if you are TX on one radio you should not be TX on the other one, so by cqing continously on one side and completing a qso on the other yo; /archives//html/RTTY/2010-02/msg00193.html (12,806 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 19
Page: [1]