Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+1810\.8\s+carrier\s+found\.\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+1810\.8\s+carrier\s+found\.\s*$/: 17 ]

Total 17 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: 1810.8 carrier found. (score: 1): Author: "Lee K7TJR" <k7tjr@msn.com>; Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 08:52:00 -0700; I have been informed that the carrier on 1810.8 KHz has been found. I have been told it was a ham running QRSS where it takes 24 hours to send a CQ. HuH? I do not know the exact location or the party; /archives//html/Topband/2014-03/msg00224.html (6,502 bytes)
2. Re: Topband: 1810.8 carrier found. (score: 1): Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 11:35:55 -0500; That's interesting, and brings to mind a question I've been wondering about for low-data-rate weak signal modes such as JT65, JT9 (which take 60 seconds to send a CQ), and QRSS (24 hours?!). In the r; /archives//html/Topband/2014-03/msg00225.html (7,175 bytes)
3. Re: Topband: 1810.8 carrier found. (score: 1): Author: Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:20:13 -0400; Once upon a time they called that 'coherent' cw. I started looking into it and saw the dreadful results. I wrote it off as quite impractical away back then. It was not only terribly slow but relied o; /archives//html/Topband/2014-03/msg00226.html (9,548 bytes)
4. Re: Topband: 1810.8 carrier found. (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:23:40 -0400; I think the rules need changed to require an ID. I have been informed that the carrier on 1810.8 KHz has been found. I have been told it was a ham running QRSS where it takes 24 hours to send a CQ. H; /archives//html/Topband/2014-03/msg00227.html (8,542 bytes)
5. Re: Topband: 1810.8 carrier found. (score: 1): Author: W2PM <w2pm@aol.com>; Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:35:08 -0400; I would just opine this is a colossal waste of spectrum - not in terms of bandwidth per se but the inefficiency and low information transfer rate. Moreover propagation testing is really not an issue; /archives//html/Topband/2014-03/msg00228.html (9,056 bytes)
6. Re: Topband: 1810.8 carrier found. (score: 1): Author: Jim Bennett <w6jhb@mac.com>; Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 10:38:40 -0700; Mike, I've been a CW op for just about 50 years. Couple months ago I started messing around with WSJT-X and it's JT65 and JT9 protocols. I run an Elecraft KX3 and my antenna is an 88-foot long double; /archives//html/Topband/2014-03/msg00229.html (10,718 bytes)
7. Re: Topband: 1810.8 carrier found. (score: 1): Author: Tree <tree@kkn.net>; Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 10:49:46 -0700; I would say that the band is big enough for all of us. We just need some coordination so we can get along. There are some open issues on 160 that have not been totally resolved (like the activity on; /archives//html/Topband/2014-03/msg00230.html (9,841 bytes)
8. Re: Topband: 1810.8 carrier found. (score: 1): Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:01:07 -0500; Thank you, Jim! That's kind of what I thought, from just monitoring 1838 wsjt-x but sometimes flipping between four directions on the Beverages. Mostly calling CQ, but some QSOs. I appreciate your ta; /archives//html/Topband/2014-03/msg00231.html (8,385 bytes)
9. Re: Topband: 1810.8 carrier found. (score: 1): Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:05:57 -0500; There was a thread about this very subject not long ago. When I also mentioned "below 1810", I was quickly informed by several here that it's just 'not going to' or 'can't' happen because of --among; /archives//html/Topband/2014-03/msg00232.html (8,679 bytes)
10. Re: Topband: 1810.8 carrier found. (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:24:05 -0400; I've found that I get moderate success when running 30-40 watts on those two "low power" modes. Correction - JT65 and JT9 are "weak signal" modes - not necessarily "low power" modes. Their primary g; /archives//html/Topband/2014-03/msg00233.html (8,950 bytes)
11. Re: Topband: 1810.8 carrier found. (score: 1): Author: "Gary Smith" <Gary@ka1j.com>; Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:59:05 -0400; Pretty anticlimatic when the ID would take 5 seconds and the QRSS QSO takes 24 hours. -- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.co; /archives//html/Topband/2014-03/msg00234.html (10,135 bytes)
12. Re: Topband: 1810.8 carrier found. (score: 1): Author: "Gary Smith" <Gary@ka1j.com>; Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 17:03:46 -0400; As I've gotten older & being a musician, performing for 50 years now, my ears are not so good. I really appreciate the "Spot" function on my K3 & for me... I find hitting that button brings me to zer; /archives//html/Topband/2014-03/msg00235.html (9,172 bytes)
13. Re: Topband: 1810.8 carrier found. (score: 1): Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:04:58 -0500; You're being sarcastic, right? :-) Since when did the FCC rules not require us to ID every 10 minutes, regardless of the mode? 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - ht; /archives//html/Topband/2014-03/msg00236.html (8,334 bytes)
14. Re: Topband: 1810.8 carrier found. (score: 1): Author: Jim Bennett <w6jhb@mac.com>; Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 15:12:26 -0700; Your points are well taken, and I agree. However, on HF, when the vast majority of ops simply do the TX=RX thing, if you happen to be the guy running 5 watts and there are a lot of stations on the ba; /archives//html/Topband/2014-03/msg00240.html (10,668 bytes)
15. Re: Topband: 1810.8 carrier found. (score: 1): Author: Brian D G3VGZ <topband@planet3.freeuk.co.uk>; Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 00:55:46 +0100; the gain appear to be less. I feel I need to be able to clearly see a CW station on the waterfall for it to be workable, but I have worked JT65 stations that are almost invisible. -- Brian D G3VGZ __; /archives//html/Topband/2014-03/msg00241.html (8,748 bytes)
16. Re: Topband: 1810.8 carrier found. (score: 1): Author: Brian D G3VGZ <topband@planet3.freeuk.co.uk>; Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 01:03:00 +0100; I am now finding it much harder to work JT modes on HF QRP. A couple of years ago yes, but so many stations are using QRO and netted frequencies it is more difficult. If I deliberately ofset my frequ; /archives//html/Topband/2014-03/msg00242.html (9,818 bytes)
17. Re: Topband: 1810.8 carrier found. (score: 1): Author: Brian D G3VGZ <topband@planet3.freeuk.co.uk>; Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 01:06:05 +0100; We are not allowed below 1810 in Europe. Apart from contest weekends most activity on 1838 kHz is fine where it is. -- Brian D G3VGZ _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesti; /archives//html/Topband/2014-03/msg00243.html (9,224 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 17
Page: [1]