: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
There is no bandwidth limit in the RTTY/data segments but there is a limit of
no wider than a communications-quality DSB phone signal using the same
modulation type in the phone/image segments from 160 to 1.25 meters. This is
interpreted as anything between 6
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://mysticlakesoftware.com/
-Original Message-
From: Charles Brabham [mailto:n5...@uspacket.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:03 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
John:
Do the rules specify
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Charles,
I'm going to disagree with your statement: [see below]
I just spent a day operating on all of the various pactor modes and we never
heard any other qso's during that operational period get interfered with.
Contrary to what
://www.hamradionet.org
- Original Message -
From: Rud Merriam
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:36 AM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Baud rate is baud rate, i.e. symbol change. There is nothing in the
regulations about how much the symbol
: Charles Brabham [mailto:n5...@uspacket.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:51 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Rud:
Note that I didn't make an arguement, I asked a question.
By your arguement, Packet should be allowed to operate at 600 baud
: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Charles,
I'm going to disagree with your statement: [see below]
I just spent a day operating on all of the various pactor modes and we never
heard any other qso's during that operational period get interfered with.
Contrary to what your
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
A simple understanding of props: Station A listens, and hearing nothing on
the band, normally sends a quick QRZ?, and if no one responds, figures he can
go ahead and transmit a signal/CQ or whatever. Station B hears that, and
responds
: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Danny:
I think you forgot about the automated sub-bands. They've been there for
close to thirty years, now.
If station A operates in the regular frequencies and avoids the rather narrow
slivers of automated sub-bands outlined in PART97, then the chances
by too many people.
73,
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message -
From: Charles Brabham
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 13:02 UTC
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
John:
Do the rules specify that there is no baudrate limit upon FDM modes
Message -
From: Charles Brabham n5...@uspacket.org
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Hard to tell if you are trying to ask a question, or make a statement. In
either case though, your post indicates a lack
AF6AS
- Original Message -
From: DANNY DOUGLAS
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
OH Wonderful! Some idiot would come up with something 50 or 100 kc wide,
and then be legal to wipe
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 13:20 UTC
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
From what I understand, we do not have an actual bandwidth limit on HF, but
we do have a practical one, based upon PART97 prohibitions against harmful
interference
Subject: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Why do we need anything running UNATTENDED
on any ham band?
just my 2cents
Nice post and well worded, Charles!
Warren - K5WGM
--- On Tue, 10/27/09, Charles Brabham n5...@uspacket.org wrote:
From: Charles Brabham n5...@uspacket.org
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 8:55 AM
the network is? I would like to
learn more about it.
Howard K5HB
From: Charles Brabham n5...@uspacket.org
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, October 27, 2009 8:55:38 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Hard to tell if you are trying
I agree with Charles, mostly. I have mixed feelings about the whole wide
versus narrow issue. While I tend to gravitate towards the narrow modes,
I have to admit to sympathizing with those on this list who express
frustration that they cannot experiment with some of the wider modes because
- Original Message -
From: Andy obrien
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
I agree with Charles, mostly. I have mixed feelings about the whole
wide versus narrow issue. While I tend
: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
- Original Message -
From: Andy obrien
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
I agree with Charles, mostly. I have mixed feelings about the whole
- Original Message -
From: DANNY DOUGLAS
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
OH Wonderful! Some idiot would come up with something 50 or 100 kc wide, and
then be legal to wipe out dozens if not hundreds
Why do we need anything running UNATTENDED
on any ham band?
just my 2cents
-
From: wb5aaa
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 7:25 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Why do we need anything running UNATTENDED
on any ham band?
just my 2cents
Don't leave your vox open,that's dumb
On 10/26/09, wb5aaa wb5...@windstream.net wrote:
Why do we need anything running UNATTENDED
on any ham band?
just my 2cents
Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at
22 matches
Mail list logo
