| To: | cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Robotic contest operating, why knot? |
| From: | Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com> |
| Reply-to: | k9yc@arrl.net |
| Date: | Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:08:38 -0800 |
| List-post: | <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> |
On 12/18/2018 11:41 AM, Alan M. Eshleman wrote: If I had an automated CQ (which doesn't seem that technically difficult) that would have been a fully computer controlled QSO. What am I missing here? WSJT-X was intentionally written so that operator intervention is required before you can have another QSO. 73, Jim K9YC _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Robotic contest operating, why knot?, Peter Voelpel |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [CQ-Contest] CQ G_land (Winchester), PY2NY |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Robotic contest operating, why knot?, Alan M. Eshleman |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Robotic contest operating, why knot?, DXer |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |