Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Ticked\s+over\s+intentional\s+interference\s+on\s+top\s+band\s*$/: 25 ]

Total 25 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: Ticked over intentional interference on top band (score: 1)
Author: wa3mej@comcast.net
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 03:01:30 +0000 (UTC)
I have been a ham for almost 46 years now and having been on 160 off an on for much of that time. Tonight I saw something that I had not really seen on 160 and kinda ticked me off big time; some idio
/archives//html/Topband/2012-01/msg00215.html (7,964 bytes)

2. Re: Topband: Ticked over intentional interference on top band (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:42:27 -0500
Unfortunately 160 is not immune to that kind of behavior. I have run into it before (including from an A1 Op member). Some would argue they were agressively pursuing a DX QSO. Most of us would classi
/archives//html/Topband/2012-01/msg00216.html (8,515 bytes)

3. Re: Topband: Ticked over intentional interference on top band (score: 1)
Author: "Jim F." <j_fitton@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 20:17:37 -0800 (PST)
As an avid QRPer I find that QRM is a fact of life almost never intentional, but frequently occuring.   Also a fact of life is that there are so many considerate and patient operators willing to stan
/archives//html/Topband/2012-01/msg00217.html (9,726 bytes)

4. Re: Topband: Ticked over intentional interference on top band (score: 1)
Author: "Greg" <n4cc@cableone.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:28:47 -0700
Sure sometimes there is some inadvertent QRM because of call timing or poor reception ...but too often it is just plain lack of consideration and rudeness -- seems to be a sign of the times. What is
/archives//html/Topband/2012-01/msg00221.html (11,149 bytes)

5. Re: Topband: Ticked over intentional interference on top band (score: 1)
Author: Roger D Johnson <n1rj@roadrunner.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:32:00 -0500
Unfortunately, VE1ZZ has a terrible signal with key clicks out to over1kHz from his carrier frequency. Perhaps the other chap had a signal he was trying to copy wiped out by ZZ and decided to get eve
/archives//html/Topband/2012-01/msg00223.html (8,963 bytes)

6. Re: Topband: Ticked over intentional interference on top band (score: 1)
Author: "Mike & Coreen Smith" <ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 08:45:49 -0400
By the way, a weird thing happened to me the other week. (rare for 160m that is) Well, not so weird, as maybe insulting.....I was working a bunch of Europe on 160m, spotting them as I went up and dow
/archives//html/Topband/2012-01/msg00224.html (12,511 bytes)

7. Re: Topband: Ticked over intentional interference on top band (score: 1)
Author: W2PM <w2pm@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 07:51:06 -0500
Im always temped to post the calls of the (many) pile up lids on the cluster and have seen people do it only to incite a flame contest. I also think fat headed lids are so dense it wouldn't change th
/archives//html/Topband/2012-01/msg00225.html (12,955 bytes)

8. Re: Topband: Ticked over intentional interference on top band (score: 1)
Author: Eddy Swynar <deswynar@xplornet.ca>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 08:07:39 -0500
Hi Roger, Sez who...? Jack's keying may well be a tad on the hard side, but his signal HARDLY emits "...key clicks out to over 1 KHz from his carrier frequency", IMHO...and I've copied him at some 30
/archives//html/Topband/2012-01/msg00226.html (9,909 bytes)

9. Re: Topband: Ticked over intentional interference on top band (score: 1)
Author: "Mike & Coreen Smith" <ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 09:18:03 -0400
There is hardly a station closer to Jack on 160m than me. ( a couple VE1's/VY2's maybe) and yes, I'll be one of the first to admit his keying is indeed a bit "hard", but I wouldn't say he's especiall
/archives//html/Topband/2012-01/msg00227.html (11,188 bytes)

10. Re: Topband: Ticked over intentional interference on top band (score: 1)
Author: Joel Harrison <w5zn@w5zn.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 07:21:28 -0600
Mike, I'm not a psychologist but after 40 years as an active radio amateur, 27 of which were directly involved in national and international amateur radio organizations, I learned that once a person
/archives//html/Topband/2012-01/msg00228.html (15,201 bytes)

11. Re: Topband: Ticked over intentional interference on top band (score: 1)
Author: "GeorgeWallner" <aa7jv@atlanticbb.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 08:53:24 -0500
G'day Gentlemen, I don't think it is "branding" when pointing out a problem with someone's signal. It happens to all of us and we need to know when our signal is not right. N4IS called me once that I
/archives//html/Topband/2012-01/msg00229.html (10,153 bytes)

12. Re: Topband: Ticked over intentional interference on top band (score: 1)
Author: Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 10:38:46 -0500
Hi, I am not and will never be a BIG player on 160...my antenna farm is more like a flower pot! I can hear much better than I can transmit..the opposite of an "alligator". So I listen a lot more than
/archives//html/Topband/2012-01/msg00239.html (10,074 bytes)

13. Re: Topband: Ticked over intentional interference on top band (score: 1)
Author: "Shoppa, Tim" <tshoppa@wmata.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 13:31:15 -0500
Many receivers (I try to indict DSP rigs below but really pure analog mulitconversion receivers can show this too) can have AGC pumping causing perceived clicks, especially when the incoming signal
/archives//html/Topband/2012-01/msg00244.html (9,512 bytes)

14. Re: Topband: Ticked over intentional interference on top band (score: 1)
Author: wa3mej@comcast.net
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:48:52 +0000 (UTC)
Geee guys,  I would be sorry I even made the original post except that no matter how bad a stations signal is technically that is no reason to intentionally jam him.  It is just plain stupid you will
/archives//html/Topband/2012-01/msg00247.html (8,726 bytes)

15. Re: Topband: Ticked over intentional interference on top band (score: 1)
Author: W2PM <w2pm@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:07:37 -0500
But as someone else mentioned, if a station has a signal problem, and despite how beloved some of our colleagues are I have heard nasty stuff a number of times, there is nothing wrong mentioning it a
/archives//html/Topband/2012-01/msg00248.html (9,414 bytes)

16. Re: Topband: Ticked over intentional interference on top band (score: 1)
Author: "ZR" <zr@jeremy.mv.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 07:43:16 -0500
Deliberate QRM and other bad behavior has been on 160 ever since it was opened to all frequencies, 1500W (and a lot more by some), and 160 included on every rig and amp. There are very few who operat
/archives//html/Topband/2012-01/msg00249.html (12,326 bytes)

17. Re: Topband: Ticked over intentional interference on top band (score: 1)
Author: Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 11:17:34 -0500
As a matter of fact... We have that 'uselss' "T" hanging out there on the end of RST (for CW ops). One year while on the way to Field Day a component lead broke in the bias supply filter in my transm
/archives//html/Topband/2012-01/msg00250.html (9,853 bytes)

18. Re: Topband: Ticked over intentional interference on top band (score: 1)
Author: mstangelo@comcast.net
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:40:24 +0000 (UTC)
I was taught to contact the station personally and notify him of the problem tactfully. Don't broadcast your gripe. Try to contact him (or her) and send an accurate signal report, such as 579K. Remem
/archives//html/Topband/2012-01/msg00251.html (9,815 bytes)

19. Re: Topband: Ticked over intentional interference on top band (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:03:34 -0500
I have actually heard a dxpedition put some particularly badly behaving ham on their own little blacklist, telling him off on the air and promising to never put him in their log because of bad behavi
/archives//html/Topband/2012-01/msg00252.html (9,866 bytes)

20. Re: Topband: Ticked over intentional interference on top band (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:21:28 -0500
The dreaded "?" sent by the DX station is an invitation for mayhem. I agree with you. If the DX station is sending a partial call, followed by "?," all stations not remotely resembling the partial s
/archives//html/Topband/2012-01/msg00253.html (9,822 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu