[RTTY] 2Tone text window not showing - Update

Wed Feb 26 16:03:38 EST 2014

Thank You for those of you who wrote advising me to  deselect the "Enable 
Attached RX  Windows" option in the N1MM Logger Setup.  I did that and now my 
 2Tone Text Windows appears automatically each time I start 2Tone.  I'm  
very happy to have that problem fixed!  

Thank You for this helpful reflector!

73,
Dick- K9OM  

In a message dated 2/26/2014 2:25:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
rtty-request at contesting.com writes:

Send  RTTY mailing list submissions to
rtty at contesting.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,  visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
or, via email, send a  message with subject or body 'help' to
rtty-request at contesting.com

You can reach the person managing the list  at
rtty-owner at contesting.com

When replying, please  edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of RTTY  digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: 2Tone text  window not showing (Richard Ferch)
2. Re: Being the fox -  pileup running ( pcooper)
3. Re: RM-11708 FAQ posted (Don  AA5AU)
4. Re: Broke 100,000 Q (Fabi) (iw1ayd - Salvatore  Irato)
5. Re: RM-11708 FAQ posted (Michael  Clarson)
6. Re: Broke 100,000 Q (Sven -DD1LI-)
7. Re: RM-11708 FAQ posted (Joe Subich, W4TV)
8. Re: RM-11708  FAQ posted (Kai)
9. Re: RM-11708 FAQ posted (Jay  WS7I)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message:  1
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:35:13 -0500
From: Richard Ferch  <ve3iay at storm.ca>
To: "rtty at contesting.com"  <rtty at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] 2Tone text window not  showing
Message-ID: <530E25D1.9090009 at storm.ca>
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Dick,

Since you  said "text window", and since you are also using MMTTY, I will 
assume you  are using 2Tone in one of the additional RX windows in N1MM 
Logger, and it  is N1MM Logger's Additional RX window(s) you can't find. 
I believe this  window has probably been minimized to the task bar. If 
you have selected  the "Enable Attached RX Windows" option in N1MM 
Logger, which displays the  text from the additional RX decoder in a one- 
or two-line pane at the top  of the main Digital Interface window, then 
by default both the Additional  RX Window and the 2Tone window are 
minimized to the task  bar.

Whether it happened automatically or because you minimized the  window 
manually, the way to recover this window is to click on the N1MM  Logger 
icon on the task bar. You will see more than one preview window  
displayed just above the task bar - one for the main Entry window, one  
for the second entry window if you are SO2V or SO2R, and one for each  
additional RX window (titled DI1 RX Window 1, etc.). Click on that  
preview window to restore the DI1 RX window.

73,
Rich  VE3KI

K9OM wrote:

> I have a problem finding the 2Tone  Text Window on my Quad  Core, Windows 
7
> Pro, CPU with 24" LED  monitor.

------------------------------

Message:  2
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:36:19 -0800
From: " pcooper"  <pcooper at guernsey.net>
To: "James C. Hall, MD"  <heartdoc at nwtcc.com>
Cc: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY]  Being the fox - pileup running
Message-ID:  <20140226093619.52B13671 at m0048141.ppops.net>
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Jamie and the group,

Good luck with  this! It will be a blast whichever way you proceed, but as 
others have  suggested, split is better.
Don't forget also that you will be getting  called by a lot of non-RTTY ops 
as well, as many will be chasing W1AW/* for  points, regardless of mode.

I'd also start split, as going simplex,  then having to change will cause 
untold confusion, especially to those who  have been calling for a while.

Lastly, MMVARI may be useful, but it is  does NOT handle FSK, only AFSK.

73 es GL!

Phil  GU0SUP

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date:  Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:47:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Don AA5AU  <aa5au at bellsouth.net>
To: RTTY  <rtty at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ  posted
Message-ID:
<1393436835.57451.YahooMailNeo at web181602.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=utf-8

I don't understand this one:

* Shouldn?t 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth data emissions be restricted to the  
band segments where phone and image communications are permitted?-
While  some commenters have argued for that, it is far beyond the scope of 
the ARRL  petition. It would require a complete reordering of the regulatory 
scheme for  the HF bands which would be controversial, to say the least.

I don't  understand the part about having to completely reorder the 
regulatory scheme.  That sounds like a bunch of malarkey.

And are they trying to say the  current proposal is not already 
controversial enough?

Don  AA5AU

>________________________________
> From:  Ron Kolarik <rkolarik at neb.rr.com>
>To: RTTY  <rtty at contesting.com> 
>Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:02  AM
>Subject: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted
> 
>
>The ARRL  FAQ is up
>http://www.arrl.org/rm-11708-faq
>I haven't had time to  go through it  yet.
>
>Ron
>K0IDT
>_______________________________________________
>RTTY  mailing  list
>RTTY at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
>

------------------------------

Message:  4
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:56:24 +0100
From: iw1ayd - Salvatore Irato  <iw1ayd at gmail.com>
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY]  Broke 100,000 Q (Fabi)
Message-ID:  <530E2AC8.9090607 at googlemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;  charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Bravo Fabi!

Nice to be  inside UR log several time, do you have some statics?
I know that the  curiosity may kill the cat!

73  de iw1ayd Salvo

------------------------------

Message:  5
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:11:30 -0500
From: Michael Clarson  <wv2zow at gmail.com>
To: Don AA5AU <aa5au at bellsouth.net>
Cc:  RTTY <rtty at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ  posted
Message-ID:
<CAFx0t24-EAe2s=Rst9OLhvP1R64J2a5ZjgoA0+4UDoFN0HFD6A at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

If its applicable, yet beyond the scope  of their petition, than they should
withdraw their petition and resubmit.  Their petition wants to replace one
outmoded restriction (symbol rate) yet  keep the also outmoded distinction
between data sent for voice or image  being somehow different than data used
for text. In today's world, if its  digital, its data. Of course, the FAQs
include no mention of the various  PACTOR modes, which allow file transfers.
Suppose, using PACTOR I send a  JPG file? Is that not image? An audio file
of a voice recording. Is that  not digital voice? --Mike, WV2ZOW

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:47 PM,  Don AA5AU <aa5au at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> I don't understand  this one:
>
>         * Shouldn't 2.8  kilohertz bandwidth data emissions be restricted
> to the band segments  where phone and image communications are permitted?-
> While some  commenters have argued for that, it is far beyond the scope of
> the  ARRL petition. It would require a complete reordering of the  
regulatory
> scheme for the HF bands which would be controversial, to  say the least.
>
> I don't understand the part about having to  completely reorder the
> regulatory scheme. That sounds like a bunch of  malarkey.
>
> And are they trying to say the current proposal is  not already
> controversial enough?
>
> Don  AA5AU
>
>
>
>
>  >________________________________
> > From: Ron Kolarik  <rkolarik at neb.rr.com>
> >To: RTTY  <rtty at contesting.com>
> >Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014  1:02 AM
> >Subject: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted
> >
>  >
> >The ARRL FAQ is up
>  >http://www.arrl.org/rm-11708-faq
> >I haven't had time to go  through it yet.
> >
> >Ron
> >K0IDT
>  >_______________________________________________
> >RTTY mailing  list
> >RTTY at contesting.com
>  >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> >
>  >
> >
>  _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing  list
> RTTY at contesting.com
>  http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>

------------------------------

Message:  6
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:37:43 +0100
From: Sven -DD1LI-  <dd1li at gmx.de>
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Broke  100,000 Q
Message-ID:  <1393439863.26595.5.camel at Linux>
Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="UTF-8"

Hey Fabi,
Congrats..... it was 15 times me ;-)
by  only 7000 Q's over the last 7 Years...

Hope to get more Time for  Contesting in future.

73's

Sven -DD1LI-

Am Dienstag,  den 25.02.2014, 12:15 -0500 schrieb Fabi:
> Dear rttyers,
>  
> I am so pleased I want to share what for me is a joyful event. During  
last weekend's NAQP I have broken the 100,000 Qs barrier using the call VA2UP  
in contest, call that I started using in january 2007 as opposed to my  
original call VE2FBD.
> I want to thank each and everyone of you for  this and hope to get on to 
another 100,000 in the next few years.
> See  you in the contests,
> 
> 73
> 
> Fabi   va2up
> http://va2up.com              
>  _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing  list
> RTTY at contesting.com
>  http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

------------------------------

Message:  7
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:50:28 -0500
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV"  <lists at subich.com>
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY]  RM-11708 FAQ posted
Message-ID:  <530E3774.50501 at subich.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;  charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

In fact that "complete  reordering" is a lie.  Other than allowing
RTTY and data in areas  where voice and image are currently authorized
the *only( change might be  to move the automatic digital segments to
the top of each band so that  automatically controlled digital systems
could avail themselves of the  wider bandwidth.

Allowing RTTY and DATA in the voice/image segments  would automatically
enforce a 2.8 KHz bandwidth (or as the rules state  "bandwidth no more
than a communications grade voice signal").

ARRL  - including the CEO and Chief Counsel - are *telling lies* to
support their  agenda.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 2/26/2014  12:47 PM, Don AA5AU wrote:
> I don't understand this  one:
>
>     * Shouldn?t 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth data  emissions be restricted to 
the band segments where phone and image  communications are permitted?-
> While some commenters have argued for  that, it is far beyond the scope 
of the ARRL petition. It would require a  complete reordering of the 
regulatory scheme for the HF bands which would be  controversial, to say the least.
>
> I don't understand the part  about having to completely reorder the 
regulatory scheme. That sounds like a  bunch of malarkey.
>
> And are they trying to say the current  proposal is not already 
controversial enough?
>
> Don  AA5AU
>
>
>
>
>>  ________________________________
>> From: Ron Kolarik  <rkolarik at neb.rr.com>
>> To: RTTY  <rtty at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014  1:02 AM
>> Subject: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ  posted
>>
>>
>> The ARRL FAQ is up
>>  http://www.arrl.org/rm-11708-faq
>> I haven't had time to go through  it yet.
>>
>> Ron
>> K0IDT
>>  _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing  list
>> RTTY at contesting.com
>>  http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>>
>>
>  _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing  list
> RTTY at contesting.com
>  http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>

------------------------------

Message:  8
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:08:01 -0500
From: Kai  <k.siwiak at ieee.org>
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY]  RM-11708 FAQ posted
Message-ID:  <530E3B91.20602 at ieee.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;  format=flowed

Don,
This may help. Here are a couple of  FAQ's  they did not ask, here they are 
with 
my answers.

"What is the  current limitation on bandwidth of digital emission (except 
two-tone RTTY)  at MF and HF?"
The answer is:
What is permitted today with no changes in  the regs, is digital signals 
(except 
two-tone RTTY) with the following  bandwidths:
160m - 200 kHz BW
80 m  - 100 kHzBW
60m  - 2.8 kHzBW [confined to the center of the channels, including two  
tone RTTY]
40 m - 125 kHzBW
30 m - 50 kHzBW
20 m  - 150 kHzBW
17 m - 42 kHzBW
15 m - 200 kHzBW
12  m - 40 kHzBW
10 m - 300 kHzBW

The above are slightly lower  for non-Extra class licensees in some bands.

"What is the bandwidth  limitation on two-tone RTTY today?"
All MF and HF bands: 1.5 kHz, except 60  m channels where 2.8 kHz is 
permitted 
for all including RTTY.

"What  is the data bandwidth limitation asked for in RM-11802?"
All MF and HF  bands, all digital data emissions, including RTTY, limited 
to 2.8  
kHz.

In the MF and HF phone bands there are likewise no statutory  BW 
limitations, but 
the widest that I know off is D-Star digital voice  which occupies about 6 
kHz, 
and good 'ole AM - also 6 kHz.

That's  it. That's all there is.

73
Kai, KE4PT

On 2/26/2014 12:47  PM, Don AA5AU wrote:
> I don't understand this one:
>
>  * Shouldn?t 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth data emissions be restricted  to the 
band segments where phone and image communications are  permitted?-
> While some commenters have argued for that, it is far  beyond the scope 
of the ARRL petition. It would require a complete reordering  of the 
regulatory scheme for the HF bands which would be controversial, to say  the least.
>
> I don't understand the part about having to  completely reorder the 
regulatory scheme. That sounds like a bunch of  malarkey.
>
> And are they trying to say the current proposal is  not already 
controversial enough?
>
> Don  AA5AU
>
>
>
>
>>  ________________________________
>> From: Ron  Kolarik<rkolarik at neb.rr.com>
>> To:  RTTY<rtty at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014  1:02 AM
>> Subject: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ  posted
>>
>>
>> The ARRL FAQ is up
>>  http://www.arrl.org/rm-11708-faq
>> I haven't had time to go through  it yet.
>>
>> Ron
>> K0IDT
>>  _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing  list
>> RTTY at contesting.com
>>  http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>>
>>
>  _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing  list
> RTTY at contesting.com
>  http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

------------------------------

Message:  9
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:24:44 -0800
From: Jay WS7I  <ws7ik7tj at gmail.com>
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY]  RM-11708 FAQ posted
Message-ID:  <530E3F7C.7050200 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;  format=flowed

That is a bunch of malarkey, they just don't want the  phone operators in 
opposition.

On 2/26/2014 9:47 AM, Don AA5AU  wrote:
> I don't understand this one:
>
>     *  Shouldn?t 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth data emissions be restricted to 
the band  segments where phone and image communications are permitted?-
> While  some commenters have argued for that, it is far beyond the scope 
of the ARRL  petition. It would require a complete reordering of the 
regulatory scheme for  the HF bands which would be controversial, to say the least.
>
> I  don't understand the part about having to completely reorder the 
regulatory  scheme. That sounds like a bunch of malarkey.
>
> And are they  trying to say the current proposal is not already 
controversial  enough?
>
> Don  AA5AU
>
>
>
>

------------------------------

Subject:  Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
RTTY  mailing  list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

------------------------------

End  of RTTY Digest, Vol 134, Issue  53
*************************************