John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
Looking for P1 connect and Roger.
You really need to grow up, John. If you have personal problems, solve
them, but how about keeping them off the forum.
de Roger W6VZV
w6ids wrote:
Hi John
At 0442Z the WD8DHF PMBO in Harker Hts, TX just started transmitting
with an S9 signal. It is sending a Solar Flux Index accompanied by a
cautionary request for users to LISTEN first before transmitting or
losing privileges.
I can hear a PACTOR signal
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
At 08:58 AM 1/24/2008, you wrote:
You really need to grow up, John. If you have personal problems,
solve them, but how about keeping them off the forum.
Really Roger after this comment :
I doubt you do much digital communications at all, John. I know
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
I'm going to start driving my car around at 150 mph. When some
programmer develops an an add-in that reads speed limit signs and
prevents me from going too fast, I'll stop running into other cars
and people.
Any criticism I receive between now and then from victims or
Danny Douglas wrote:
And who will go to that group? Probably only the ones being bothered
with the interference! Those who are happy with WinLink, and its
continuance will NOT. Why should they? If one gets what he wants, he
isnt likely to go to an anti-subject group to get his daily dose
Jack Chomley wrote:
The subject says it all. I run a Pactor mailbox, just like the Packet
mailbox that I used to run, many years agojust like MOST of you
did, back then too. I am just another Ham, TRYING to enjoy my
hobby...
73s
Jack VK4JRC
We understand, Jack. But please
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
So tell me (and others) how someone operating a mode with a waterfall
display and seeing a signal (so be it a pactor signal) QRM that
ongoing keyboard to keyboard QSO?
It seems to be that *any* pactor signal is fair game for anyone that
*only* knows that is a
kh6ty wrote:
97.113 Prohibited transmissions. (a) No amateur station shall
transmit:
(5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be
furnished alternatively through other radio services.
Excellent point. The above regulation, interpreted reasonably, would
outlaw 99.9%
Jose Amador wrote:
For me, the proven offenders can be ATTENDED stations.
Indeed, Jose, this is always possible. Who among us has not on some
erroneous occasion transmitted without listening long ENOUGH, and
instead unintentionally QRMed an innocent QSO? But VERY few of us would
ever do
expeditionradio wrote:
This is simply childish backlash directed at me personally because I
opposed the Digital Stone Age Petition. It really has nothing at all
to do with HFLINK or ALE. It will go away.
Bonnie KQ6XA
Actually, what is childish is the never-ending assertion by Winlink
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
At 08:14 AM 1/13/2008, you wrote:
Twice in the last seven days I have had QSOs disrupted by a Pactor
Winlink station firing up on top of my QSO. Fortunately, both times
I turned the power way up (from about 40 watts to 200 watts) and we
were able to work
Alan Barrow wrote:
I've personally gone on site for two hurricanes. Not because I'm a
cop wanna-be. No, I did it at significant personal cost and
discomfort because thousands of folks needed help. And were asked,
somewhat desperately, to help. And we were uniquely positioned to
help,
jgorman01 wrote:
Does this ever increasing number of government agencies doing this
scare the bejeebers out of anybody. That is, the government buying
permanent infrastructure and someday wanting a return on investment,
like using it to augment regular communications?
Jim WA0LYK
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another point to consider is that the Government Employee who will be
operating this equipment is maintaining (and will probably continue
to maintain) and average age south of 40 years old. The same cannot
be said for the Amateur Radio community who is letting
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
Maybe all would be well if the word WinLink had not been used.
Probably. Other forms of amateur communication listen before they
transmit, thereby preventing unnecessary QRM.
de Roger W6VZV
Rick wrote:
I sure wish more hams would work on solving this problem, rather than
exacerbating the situation and being part of the problem.
Just a few minutes ago I was trying to have a Q with VE5MU using FAE
400 around 10137. A Pactor station starting transmitting right over
our
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
Rick You keep lumping automatic together with unattended
As you may know the ProrNet site says to NEVER leave your station
untended as well as the WL2K site.
A station transmitter without a homo sapiens located at a receiver *at
the location of the receiver*
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
Demetre, amateur radio in the United States is governed by FCC
regulations.
Would the fact that Winlink PMBOs flagrantly violate these
regulations have something to do with your suggestion that we ignore
them?
Thank you for that, Dave.
de Roger W6VZV
Charles Brabham wrote:
Don't hold your breath while you wait for an enthusiastic response
from Packet operators, who are constantly QRM'ed by PACTOR Lids and
generally will not tolerate being associated with them, in any way.
The difference is that the Packet folks do not feel that they
Howard Brown wrote:
LAWS OF RADIO ROBOTICS
A robot operator may not QRM a human operator or, through inaction,
allow a human operator to be QRMed.
A robot operator must obey orders given it by human operators
especially orders to stop transmitting until the frequency is clear.
A
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
At 08:34 PM 1/1/2008, you wrote:
John, you might ask yourself if your above comment is worthy of
your personal level of maturity.
Roger please, I'm not the one that can't fine a pactor QSO.
Yes, John, a terrible moral failing, I know... 8-)
Nick wrote:
CQing on 14.0755 Pactor ARQ FWIW... de Nick KU2A FN42dw
How does one CQ in Pactor ARQ?
de Roger W6VZV
Sholto Fisher wrote:
You don't, you would use either Pactor-1 FEC or RTTY to call CQ
first.
Yes, I know. That was my point. I haven't heard a Pactor FEC signal in
3 or 4 years.
de Roger W6VZV
Sholto Fisher wrote:
You know I head a Pactor-1 FEC call around 14,061 a couple days ago
but I don't have my PK-232 anymore so couldn't reply. I wonder if it
was someone in this group?
73 Sholto KE7HPV.
I might be wrong but I think that MixW can parse Pactor1 FEC.
de Roger W6VZV
Charles Brabham wrote:
- Original Message - From: Roger J. Buffington
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:barrister54%40socal.rr.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
snip Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one
American company the name of which
w6ids wrote:
- Original Message - From: Bill McLaughlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:bmc%40wonderwave.net To:
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 30,
2007 12:56 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD
For KBD
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
Hmm OK,
I hope this anti SCS thing is not going to end to being an
anti-European thing Roger. I get that feeling somehow, since SCS is
not an American company.
My dear fellow, I once owned an SCS PTC-II. Very few American hams ever
bought one--they never sold
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
Quite the contrary, many american hams own a PTC-II modem, also there
are more PACTOR PMBOs in USA than the rest of the World right now my
friend.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on one's use of the word many.
In fact, a vanishingly small percentage of either
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
Hi Rick,
Well my old KAM Controller with it's addon PCB for supporting PACTOR
1 definatelly has Memory ARQ. Memory ARQ is a must for PACTOR
protocol. There is no PACTOR without memory ARQ.
Actually, this is untrue. The PK232 did not have memory arq, and unless
I am
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
Well,
I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen
one.
You know, Demetre, I am getting tired of remarks like that from you. I
have attempted to reply to your posts with courtesy, but you seem bent
upon returning courtesy with bad manners.
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do
not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is
wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did
not mean to offend you.
No worry, Demetre. You did not upset
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
So what you are talking about PACTOR 3 being the only offender is FAR
AWAY FROM THE TRUTH OM.
There is no system today that has such a DETECTOR you are dreaming
about.
My station does. A human operator.
Finally if you are so adament about such a detector why
Mark Miller wrote:
Forwarded with the permission of G3PLX
Thank you for sharing this Mark. If you and Peter Martinez are both for
the petition, that along with my independent review is good enough for me.
Sorry to see some of the ad hominem bozo remarks on this forum. Hey,
I thought I was
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
At 05:46 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote:
I am contemplating the purchase of an SCS TNC just to turn in the
violators.
1. what are you going to do when you find a KB2KB QSO going on?
Be darned surprised. There are almost zero, goosegg, nada
keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs
Dave Bernstein wrote:
I have never heard a WinLink PMBO identify in CW.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
That is because they never do. The SCS TNCs can be set to ID in CW, but
in practice no one ever does.
de Roger W6VZV
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
At 07:28 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote:
Be darned surprised. There are almost zero, goosegg, nada
keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs in Pactor. The mode is dead except for
robots.
Yeah Roger you keep saying that yet I seem to find them all the time.
Have you given it a
expeditionradio wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Barry Garratt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HUH!
They didn't want CW! What mode were the spark gap operators running
then ?
Spark.
Bonnie KQ6XA
Yes, CW replaced spark gap in much
expeditionradio wrote:
First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, and I did not speak out because I was
not a PACTOR operator.
The thing that distinguishes Pactor and Winlink from all other modes and
indeed from the entire rest of amateur radio is the announced policy on
the part of the Winlink
W2XJ wrote:
Written in great spin mister style. I disagree with the
unsubstantiated claims made in this and other posts by Bonnie. I
participate in various digital modes but I know that they will not be
a major factor in a true emergency. Anyone who uses that ruse is just
playing
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you get it,
you just won't admit it.
The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital
mode protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended
stations (PMBOs) transmit without first
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
OK Roger,
Whether you like it or not all the
above DIGITAL MODES are here to stay!!! They are not going to go away
because you don't like them. If you don't like them don't use them!
Actually, I doubt very much whether Winlink or Pactor will be around a
few years from
Mark Thompson wrote:
*Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies*
Of course, the problem with Winlink is that since Winlink stations do
not, as a matter of policy, listen before transmitting, there is a grave
risk that a Winlink station will interfere with other emergency
traffic. Other forms of
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
Well,
Do we really need contests, ragchewing, voice qsos, voice nets, cw
qsos, cw nets, on HF? Realy it all depends on what each individual
wants to do! Your millage might vary! It's a hobby OM! Each guys
pleasure might be someone else's discomfort, but when an
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
Some will never ending complain about anything and everything.
Bottom line - it worked and very well.
Actually, I doubt that Winlink did much of anything. The original post
read a lot more like a PR effort by people with an agenda than anything
of substance.
Sholto Fisher wrote:
It can also clog up our bands.
For instance I am monitoring a Pactor 2 transmission on 30m that has
been on going for around 25 minutes so far and the latest email to go
through is titled:
FW: Please read til the end-Why boys need parents...269250
Do we really
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
Due to the pending 1/1/08 contests sponsored by this group, I'm a
little behind on creating DRCC numbers. I will probably finish the
the backlog of requests in the next day or so. It is good to see the
interest, hopefully it will translate to good activity in the
Howard Brown wrote:
Garrett, I have always wondered why the FCC allows this to happen. It
seems to me that they are violating the rules.
I have a similar question about Pactor 3. Can someone explain why it
is allowed? My impression is that it is wider than 500 Hz and isn't
that the
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
Roger your beating a very dead horse. In just 41 days all the wide
robots will have to be in their own sub-band.
I sure hope this anti-wide stuff will stop soon.
John, W0JAB
You mean you hope that the anti-Pactor stuff will stop. But you have
completely
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
Points taken. What about the times I and other have been up around
075 to 077 with KB to KB on one of the Pactor modes and without
seeing any text someone starts calling CQ with one of the sound card
modes?
There is a difference.
1. In the last 5 years of
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
Roger regardless of what you think about Amtor and Pactor - both are
still doing very well. Other then a hand full of CW and SSB QSO's the
log book is full of both Amtor and Pactor 1, 2 and 3.
John, W0JAB
Incredible. And I am on digital almost every morning
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
Well just add the rest of the keyboard modes while your at it...
Great idea! With mode multipliers.
And
please make sure you do add both the keyboard mode of Amtor and
Pactor.
Ten extra points for using a time machine, because that is what you'll
need to work
Brian A wrote:
Look at:
http://rttycontesting.com/2007survey/2007octsurveyresults.html
http://rttycontesting.com/2007survey/2007octsurveyresults.html
It reflects the comments of over 500 RTTY contesters.
One major conclusion: More RTTY contests wanted.
This is despite the fact that
Brian A wrote:
Roger,
What about shared resoures don't you understand?
I don't particularly care for the tone of your post. Thanks for the
lecture. Conversation ended. SK
de Roger W6VZV
Dave Sloan wrote:
A friend just got his Navigator in the mail yesterday and is having
problems getting it to work. Anyone have any experience with the
Navigator?
TNX 73, Dave N0EOP
Dave did you try what I told you with NavOptions, changing 15 to
Normal? I am pretty sure that was your
Dave Sloan wrote:
A friend just got his Navigator in the mail yesterday and is having
problems getting it to work. Anyone have any experience with the
Navigator?
TNX 73, Dave N0EOP
It is slightly tricky to set up, but once you get it set up it works
wonderfully, and in a trouble-free
Dave Sloan wrote:
Hi Roger, He worked with Glenn yesterday and Glenn is gone for the
week-end. Of course he doesn't want to wait. He says the interface
shows he is keying and the radio shows it is keying. But, he is
getting nothing out. I told him to try raising his ALC some and to
also
expeditionradio wrote:
The recent RTTY contest leads one to ponder: Why don't we see much
backlash against contests?
More flame bait.
de Roger W6VZV
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
If our objective is to welcome and encourage new digital mode
operators, then I suggest that we *never* respond to questions in
anything less than a positive and constructive way -- no matter how
ambiguous, poorly worded, defensive, or just plain wrong-headed the
expeditionradio wrote:
Alan G3VLQ wrote: In my opinion all amateur un-attended automatic
operation should be banned world wide. Automatic operation might be
essential to HF emcomm but is emcomm essential, I think not.
Alan,
Are you ready, along with all your friends, to personally
Dan KA3CTQ wrote:
I am sorry Bonnie, but you are arguing from a very weak spot. 1%
asking for 10% and more for a poor efficiency mode is nothing but a
land grab. Your points are based in personal opinion and lack any
examples or numbers to back up the need to make this change.
Exactly
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
At 08:34 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:
Why any amateur would want to see our bands cluttered up with a
third-rate email forwarding system is a mystery
And just why do you think every message passed is email?
It seems to me you have never copied the traffic.
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
At 09:41 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:
Well John,
Those guys never tried.. so for them it is QRM... sad eh?
Patrick vk2pn
And the packet, amtor and aplink BBS system did what different?
Just trying to understand why so many HATE the mode of pactor.
1. It
Rud Merriam wrote:
Roger,
As a ham I am interested in using email via my radio. Part of it is
technical challenge of working on a system to do this. Part of it is
to explore the digital technologies.
Much of my interest is aside from disaster communications, but there
is that, also.
expeditionradio wrote:
The use of the Automatic Sub Bands on HF ham radio for digital data
has been increasing tremendously over the past 5 years. Obviously,
automatic and similar types of operation have become extremely
popular with ham operators.
.
What nonsense. In fact it is a small
expeditionradio wrote:
Automatic operation is essential to HF emcomm. It is certainly not
asking too much that 10% of each ham band be devoted to one of the
primary purposes for the existence of the Amateur Radio Service.
Greg, where is your volunteer force of non-automatic operators
expeditionradio wrote:
Roger, it's time to put your money where your mouth is.
If you can provide such 24/7 access on HF with manually operated
stations, they do so now. Show us your volunteer operator army on
duty. Otherwise, your continued protests ammount to little more than
lip
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
At 07:41 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:
One last thing. I like to say only what I *know* to be so. I do
not, for a fact, know that a large portion of the internet messages
that pass on Winlink are business-related, although I do know that
some are. I will therefore
Rick wrote:
Demetre,
What you are recommending is completely unacceptable to 99.9% of all
hams.
Many of us operate various digital modes, both narrow and wide and in
between. In the U.S., the text digital sub bands are anything that
is not the voice/image sub bands.
People have
Les Warriner wrote:
And is strictly illegal by Part 97. 5 KW linears are available.
Want the address? No wonder why Hollingsworth spends so much time in
California.
It is illegal to start on low power and increase the power to maintain a
contact on what was a clear channel at the
Les Warriner wrote:
Your statement was that you would increase power to interfere with
him/her deliberately.
Wrong. I said that I would increase power to keep the Pactor station
from taking the frequency. By the way, I don't imagine in your
investigation of the facts (of which there is
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
Do you ever transmit SSB in the CW or DIGITAL subbands Dave? I'd love
to see you doing that!
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
73 de Demetre SV1UY
Talk about a false analogy. By this logic anytime a human digital
station operates where Pactor operates (i.e. everywhere there
Bill Aycock wrote:
Frank- I think that there is MUCH confusion in our ranks on this
subject. For instance, I set my rig to one frequency (usually
14,070.00) and leave it there. I tune to different signals by moving
the marker that shows the offset from the base frequency on the
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Brian A [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong. However, reading all these posts suggests
that what these wonder modes want and or need is channelized,
clear channel frequencies,
Dave Bernstein wrote:
Whether you find an interesting signal by clicking on traces in a
panoramic tuning display or by rotating your tranceiver's tuning
dial, ideally you should then direct your digital mode application to
place the selected signal at a pre-specified optimal audio offset
expeditionradio wrote:
JT65a is certainly an automatic mode. It is as automatic as any other
automatic system. It perfectly fits the definitions of automatic in
both the strictest sense and in many other ways, figuratively,
literally and as used in RF communications:
It sounds like a
Rud Merriam wrote:
My only criticism is you are lumping a tool, PACTOR, into a procedure
discussion. PACTOR is a tool that has nothing to do with unattended
operation, except it is used in unattended operation.
Which is about all it is used for. Nothing wrong with Pactor as a live
QSO
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
Yes Dave, but my questions are related to what Hollingworth was
saying at Dayton. Was he implying that they don't really care about
the issue and suggesting that we all lighten up and resolve the
matters among ourselves ?
I sure hope that is not what he meant. How
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
-
So if I were you and the above description covers you I would buy an
SCS-modem. The cheapest one is the PTC-IIex.
73 de SV1UY
Andy, if you ever make it to California I can look in my junk closet for
my PTC-II modem (will support Pactor 1,2,3). I quit using it
Vojtech Bubnik wrote:
Question - what's so special about MT63 - where / when is it used?
From my point of view, MT63 has high number of carriers, which
implies
low crest factor - the effective transmitted power will be much lower
than of single tone mode like Olivia, if you make sure
Simon Brown wrote:
FWIW I tried the DominoEx-4/8/16 today without FEC. Nice mode - at
the moment I'm only supporting the 8kHz sample rate modes without any
FEC. If the need arises I'll add the 11.025kHz variants.
To complete my current programming effort I guess I should look at
MT63 -
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
I think the point was simply that there may be some new,
inexperienced, operators on 10...not poor operators. If they were at
28300, they are WAY OFF the recommended PSK31 frequency of 28120 USB.
Andy K3UK
Not 28070?
de Roger W6VZV
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
Quite a lot of MFSK16 activity on 20M today. Don't forget this useful
mode.
Andy K3UK
Indeed. My favorite digital mode. I live for the day when DM780
includes it! :-)
de Roger W6VZV
Dave wrote:
I have apparently missed the memo that covered the way calls are made
and answered on PSK31. I just answered a CQ sent by one station,
only to have a completely different station call me back and start a
QSO as if I had answered him! This is at least the 4th or 5th time
this
John Champa wrote:
Bruce,
When are you ever going to stop your babling ignorance about wide
band HSMM on 6-meters?
You are worried about 100 kHz when the band maybe opens in a few
years out of a 4,000 kHz wide band. Get real! Attach brain to
keyboard.
I am getting very tired of
Brian A wrote:
You are totally WRONG if you truly believe that the other station KHz
away is at fault because he captures your AGC when you're using a 3
KHz filter. As you point out PSK is only 31 HZ wide. Thus it only
seems reasonable to try and copy them with a narrow filter. A filter
Peter G. Viscarola wrote:
Let me hasten to add: I certainly DO NOT want to be an discourteous
operator, and I ONLY wish to operate my station in accordance with
best practices. Seriously.
So, how does one reconcile the oft-repeated mantra only run 25W or
40W with my experience? Am I
Danny Douglas wrote:
Absolutely spot on Erick. That is one reason that we try to tell new
people, on the digital bands, to start with as few watts as they can.
There is just no reason to run 100 watts ( and I expect some run
more) on the PSK, etc. digital modes. Everytime I say that
John Bradley wrote:
Hmmm. Large number of rules sounds like suppression to me.
The right of citizens to experiment and innovate freely without the
government telling them where when and how would be a truly free
society.
My guess is that the vast majority of non US hams on this
wa0cqg wrote:
As mentioned in an earlier post, I have a PacComm Pactor I controller
(vintage 1992) with version 2.02 firmware. I did find the original
operating instructions and am wondering if there is some better
software to use than trying to find some terminal emulator. What
would
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
Now that images are legal to transmit (in the USA) and MFSK16 is set
for this in MixW and Multipsk, I wonder if it has been determined
useful ? I rarely hear/see any use of this function. .
-- Andy K3UK Skype Me : callto://andyobrien73 callto://andyobrien73
Patricia Gibbons wrote:
Yes, I have MIXW, with a tigertronics SignaLinkUSB interface,
connected to a Yaesu FT897D ..
In digital mode, I can select the 500 Hz CW filter, then using the IF
shift, I move the IF passband so that it is centered on the signal
being received .. generally
Salomao Fresco wrote:
Hi!
It looks great! It works great!
Today I made a pause on my sabatic leave on amateur Radio to try
DM780. Made a few QSO's and I think it does what it says. The adition
of modes as the time passes will make it a piece of software to keep
an eye on. We will
Simon Brown wrote:
Drag the marker, it's in the User Guide, I'll make this more obvious
:-)
Simon Brown, HB9DRV
Yes, thank you I actually found it there on p64. On my computer I had
to press control and left click for it to drag. Works FANTASTIC!!
Except for spending 15 minutes or so
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
FCC Announcement
It was announced today that Kellogg's and the Federal Communications
Commission have signed a pact to issue Amateur Radio Licenses on
specially marked boxes of Corn Flakes. In this unprecedented move the
FCC believes this will not hurt amateur
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
-One man's garbage may be another man's treasure.
Andy.
I 'spose. :-)
de Roger W6VZV
Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote:
This would still be a good solution. 1/3 the band for narrow museum
modes. 1/3 for voice modes and 1/3 for modern progressive modes with
no rules or bandwidth limits and let technology rule.
73 Bill - WA7NWP
I am confused. What is a narrow museum mode? PSK31?
Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote:
There was no detection available when the rules were implemented
(1995?). That is the reason for the automatic areas. It was
primarily intended for fully automatic stations, such as the
Winlink system (perhaps the is still true for the NTS/D system
which
Danny Douglas wrote:
The best answer is NO linears at all. Not gonna happen. But, in those
countries whee no linears are allowed, things seem to work quite
smoothly and operators get out and work DX better than most people
here do.
Danny Douglas N7DC
Well yeah. Countries in Europe and
Seems all the stateside operators want to do is argue.
Is the plan to go back to the fundementals of this group, or do we
set up a new one where policy arguments would be punted?
John VE5MU
Fellows, injecting national slurs into *any* ham radio discussion is a
spectacularly bad idea.
mulveyraa2 wrote:
I think I've actually gotten a Thanks! I'll drop my drive level down
next time maybe twice. A few never responded back, and the
remainder were of the F-you, there's nothing wrong with my signal or
equipment style. Needless to say, you can recognize the same guys
over
1 - 100 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
