Folks, please remember that a rule here is that, while being free to
strongly disagree, we should do so without personal attacks. I often
disagree with many hams, and enjoy disagreeing with Bonnie at times.
However, she deserves respect for her opinions and personal attacks
should be avoided. Th
Ed G writes:
>
> Using your same logic below, it could well be determined that hams
> who partake regularly in 75M evening nets, or even regular QSO, etc,
> should take their conversations to FCC Part D Citizen's band, or other
> service , because those communications on a reg
-Original Message-
From: wb8...@aol.com
To:
Sent: Fri, Apr 9, 2010 8:18 pm
Subject: Streaming video from this Saturday morning UAH balloonsat flights
Upwards of 5 balloons possible from Huntsville, ALlook for APRS callsigns
starting with KG4WSV, WB8ELK and UAH on 144.39 (as well
> In her OWN WORDS, she states that ALE is a "listen-first" mode
Actually, this is true...to a degree. PC-ALE does have the ability to
detect the presence of a signal and delay the start of a sounding .
It does not work very well however, in my experience less than 10% of
the time.. WINMOR, on
Did you ever go through all the modes / sub modes to try and figure
out which one was being sent - only to have the other party go QRT
after you find it : )
>
> Tony -K2MO
Everyday, it seems!
Andy K3UK
_ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5014 (20100409) __
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
Quite a few "seasoned hams" still use older forms of software that do not
support RSID. Why they chose not to upgrade is beyond me but they have
their reasons. I suppose that if all you ever do is RTTY and PSK31, what
would be the point in transmitting an RSID? Or upgrading your software?
Ric
I understand what you are saying Skip.
But the bottom line is that most can't copy it
and therefore don't understand it.
I have gotten phone calls and email from my CW ID after
a person to person QSO telling me what a lid I was
for operating pactor. I love the ARQ modes (pactor
amtor) and at this
Nice.
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" wrote:
>
> At 09:57 AM 4/8/2010, you wrote:
>
>
> >John
> >
> >i have been there too Remember wide band digital on 6 and 2 meters ?
>
> I was removed by her from one list for asking questions that 2nd guessed
> her. T
Using your same logic below, it could well be determined that hams who
partake regularly in 75M evening nets, or even regular QSO, etc, should take
their conversations to FCC Part D Citizen's band, or other service ,
because those communications on a regular basis could be easily
All,
I was just wondering if there's any confusion or misunderstanding among
the group about RS-ID? We all know that it's not always easy to identify
a mode by sight and sound yet I still see many calling CQ without any
mode identification. The end result, no contacts. I'm sure most of the
sea
Point taken, neighbor!
73,
John
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 9:07 AM, kb2hsh wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I 110% agree with you there.
> >
> > Bonnie (yes, I'm not bashful about calling her out) "controls" ALE as if it
> > were HERS. In my opini
"In return, it does benefit all the other digital modes which are looking
for places to operate,"
Alan, that's plain stupid. Looking at my ARRL band/mode chart, I see in EVERY
HF band the phrase RTTY and Data.
Wow...DATAthere's my place to operate.
John KB2HSH
--- In digitalradio@yahoogr
...So...realigning the HF bands to benefit less than 1% (using automatic modes)
doesn't have a MOTIVE? You're dreaming, fella, if you think that.
Bonnie acts as if she owns 14.109 and the rest of the ALE "channels". When the
debate raged on of whether or not ROS was legal, she regurgitated
John,
I don't know if your comments are directed to me or are in response to my
comments on NTS Digital, but NTSD has nothing to do with hams at sea. If you
want more information about NTS Digital operations and practices please check
this web site.
http://home.earthlink.net/~bscottmd/n_t_s_d.
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien wrote:
>
>
> A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated
> traffic stations to use the World Wide Web. The web is faster, less
> likely to be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the
> side of
Dave
right now I dont have the time to plug the holes
in your comments.
But the bottom line is that they are ham's at see.
Would there be a problem if they only used SSB
and not data mode?
Adding to Skip's remarks, I will point out it is considered almost an
indecency among the daily-position-report hams to mention 97.113(a)(5)
of the FCC rules, which states:
(a) No amateur station shall transmit:
...
(5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be
furn
All,
I'll be QRV ALE-400 CHAT MODE this evening.
14074.0 / 3586.0 +/- QRM.
Please send email direct for skeds.
Thanks,
Tony -K2MO
- Original Message -
From: kc4cop
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 2:08 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
Your comments about "Grandma's birthday" indicates that you understand very
little concern
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
> Most of what I have seen in the past has been ship's, boat's or whatever
you would like to label then as sending position reports. That in turn *DO*
end up on the WORLD WIDE WEB. But I can only speak for pactor.
It is important to differentiate between unattended sta
At 01:08 AM 4/9/2010, you wrote:
>A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated
>traffic stations to use the World Wide Web. The web is faster, less likely to
>be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the side of many ham
>radio operators.
Most of w
22 matches
Mail list logo
