Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+QRSS\s+on\s+160m\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+QRSS\s+on\s+160m\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: QRSS on 160m (score: 1): Author: df2py@t-online.de (DF2PY); Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 19:45:17 +0100; Hello reflectees ! Refering to N6RK`s proposal i have a few comments. I consider the use of the computer generated and demodulated QRSS mode on 160m an interesting approach. Having pioneered 136 kcs; /archives//html/Topband/2002-11/msg00059.html (7,634 bytes)
2. Topband: QRSS on 160m (score: 1): Author: gtucker@bostoneng.com (G.E. Tucker); Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:32:20 -0500; I'd be interested in trying QRSS on 160M. It seems to me that it is a Digital mode, not CW, and as such would count as DXCC RTTY, not CW, and should be done in the Digital part of the band plan, not; /archives//html/Topband/2002-11/msg00063.html (7,414 bytes)
3. Topband: QRSS on 160m (score: 1): Author: zl3ix@inet.net.nz (Greg - ZL3IX); Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 20:20:33 +1300; I agree with the general flow of opinion on this subject. I would like to see some experiments on Topband using this mode, but in a different part of the band from standard CW, and not counting for n; /archives//html/Topband/2002-11/msg00065.html (7,414 bytes)
4. Topband: QRSS on 160m (score: 1): Author: W0AH@aol.com (by way of Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>); Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 05:50:31 -0500; I have been using ARGO for QRSS receive and ON7YD's QRS317 for transmit the past few weeks. I am able to run QRSS on 160M next week if anyone wants to. Right now, I have my LOWfer "CO" beacon on abou; /archives//html/Topband/2002-11/msg00067.html (8,130 bytes)
5. Topband: QRSS on 160m (score: 1): Author: tod@k0to.us (Tod Olson - Idaho); Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:52:57 -0700; I thought perhaps another member of the ARRL 160 meter band plan review committee might comment, but seeing none has I would point out that the recommendation to the ARRL Board was that experimental; /archives//html/Topband/2002-11/msg00076.html (7,924 bytes)
6. Topband: QRSS on 160m (score: 1): Author: W0AH@aol.com (W0AH@aol.com); Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:21:58 EST; tod@k0to.us writes: << If QRSS is 'experimental' rather than simply very slow CW, the logical place for it to operate is at the top of the band. >> Hi Todd, QRSS is, without question, very slow CW. I; /archives//html/Topband/2002-11/msg00079.html (8,061 bytes)
7. Topband: QRSS on 160m (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 21:21:24 -0500; ....and what should those criteria be Doug? To other ops QRSS is just like someone outputting a very long steady series of carriers, like someone not quite able to get the tuner adjusted! That's OK; /archives//html/Topband/2002-11/msg00083.html (8,037 bytes)
8. Topband: QRSS on 160m (score: 1): Author: W0AH@aol.com (by way of Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>); Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 05:49:30 -0500; << ..and what should those criteria be Doug? >> Tom, I posted two days ago that <> The criteria, IMO, should be 1) the avoidance of unnecessary interference to stations who are following the ARRL (an; /archives//html/Topband/2002-11/msg00086.html (9,837 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]