--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Brian A wrote:
> >
> > Look at:
> > http://rttycontesting.com/2007survey/2007octsurveyresults.html
> > <http://rttycontesting.com/2007survey/2007octsurveyresul
Look at:
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 there are at least 32 now.
So if you think RTTY contests are going to disappear, think ag
adio@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Chudek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> A minor correction to the statement "WF1B supported quite a few TU
types but no sound cards."
>
> RTTY by WF1B supported the RITTY program by Brian, K6STI.
ht
31 and the sound card modes appeared. Actually, after using
them, I
> > built a hardware modem that improved a LOT their performance,
> > using both as terminals.
> >
> > I would say that PSK31 started the popularity of sound card modes.
> >
> > This is what
Andy,
Maybe it is a chicken and the egg thing. To have activity, you have
to have activity.
I don't think it has anything to do with the digital mode. The
advance that made RTTY so popular was the advent of sound card RTTY.
I can attest to that since I operated RTTY contests before and after
Rick,
Your no ground situation + high power is a recipe for RF problems.
Try some 1/4 wave counterpoises connected to the rig ground. You can
have multiple ones for different bands connected simultaneously.
People who live on second and third floors have the same problem with
long ground paths.
Rick,
Welcome to the world of QRO.
You didn't mention your antenna system or band. Common problems guys
have:
1) open wire line with goofy unbalanced antenna attached.
2) poor grounding of the rig. (A fat short ground connecting amp and
rig needed.) Corroded connections at the ground stake. Ol
uitry
is linear and can handle strong sigs. There are indeed sound cards
that claim a 120db dynamic range.
73 de Brian/K3KO
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Vojtech Bubnik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Brian A" wrote
modern modes as MFSK16,
Olivia, ALE have a diversity in time and in frequency).
>
> About the bands crowded. For this side of the ocean, the digital
bands don't seem very crowded except during contests.
> It seems there are widely enough room for 400 Hz bandwidth
transmissions.
>
our point?
> LA5VNA Setinar
>
>
>
> Brian A skrev:
> >
> > So one gets the 60wpm of 170Hz shift RTTY for a 400 Hz bandwidth?
> >
> > 73 de Brian/K3KO
> >
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, Mark Th
So one gets the 60wpm of 170Hz shift RTTY for a 400 Hz bandwidth?
73 de Brian/K3KO
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mark Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ALE400 Narrow band ALE mode now available
>
> Patrick F6CTE has announced that a narrow band version of the
popular Automatic Lin
I want to point out that 7070 and the surrounds are part of the "phone
" band in Europe and elsewhere(e.g. Canada). It has been that way
long before any of these digital modes existed. It isn't just
contests. It is a very popular spot day in and day out. The BC
stations in EU from 7100 up make t
Luc,
Guess what? Contesters work during the week too. Many have weekends
only for radio. So you get them engaged in their favorite activity on
weekends. Why is this hard to understand?
They don't complain about the QRM but rather accept it as a challenge
to overcome. I suspect this is also
emergency communications modes that can be copied by just
about anybody.
73 de Brian/K3KO
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan NV8A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10/18/07 12:01 pm Brian A wrote:
>
> > The digital systems being proposed for emergency use require a rig
&g
The digital systems being proposed for emergency use require a rig
with antenna, a computer with soundcard and functional software. Also
an operator trained with the protocol in use. Right?
My perception of emergency situations is that just having a
rig/antenna available and working may be no smal
This definition says all the past HF emergency communications were
useless and might as well never have been attempted.
New and different doesn't always mean better or more useful.
Emergency communications always boils down to using whatever is
available and whatever works under the circumstances
wrote:
> >
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, "Brian A"
> > wrote:
>
> > > Correct me if I'm wrong. However, reading all these posts suggests
> > > that what these "wonder modes" want and or
Just for curiosity. I wonder if the digital experts out there would
care to speculate how all these new "wonder modes" would perform in
the din of this contest? Would ALE work at all? Would these modes be
able to exchange the contents of 2000 contacts as the bigger RTTY
stations do in a weekend
Roger,
The real thing that gets in my craw about JT65 is the 60 second
continuous transmissions for each QSO segment. On HF, this could
surely be reduced to 30 seconds or less. I've yet to have really weak
ones reply that would have needed the long decode period. I
understand the need for reall
CW.
No computer needed. Also when you're operating QRP you need a large
number of potential stations to work. I really pitty the portable QRP
station with a budipole antenna trying to work the small handfull of
stations he might hear on an oddball digital mode. You might just as
well leave the
> 1/2 inches wide. This enables me to place two pages side by side at
> almost full size and view most of both pages. I wish this had been
> available in the past when I used to be a consultant who did a fair
> amount of document development and needed to compare docs and cut and
&
Rick,
I am really bothered by loosing still more lines of text with these
wide screen beasties. The present OS's are like Stephen Kings
Langoliers. They eat away at available screen real estate.
Any way to turn them 90 degrees and also rotate the windows display
screen so that a full page can
Of course, if you don't have a spare RS232 port then CAT contol is
obviously better. At least for PSK, I found the CAT control on the MP
to work just fine.
I question the "timing" conclusion. Anybody who has tried using RS232
ports or LPT's for sending CW knows the highly buffered environment i
Bonnie,
If this kind of performance is so easy to get, why are the
manufacturers not doing it?
It appears to me that TenTec's crusade for receiver performance is
finally waking up the other manufacturers. For years, most
manufacturers produced newer, "greater" receivers with worse receiver
inter
Hi Steve,
Other receiver articles have touted having more not less filtering.
Diode switching has the downside of being non-linear (mode possible
intermod) and has less isolation. Both are negatives.
In Europe where HF Intermod reins supreme, whatever means necessary is
used to add additional fi
Steve,
I think this proves Andrew's point. Trying to just read what you
said, much less implement it is seemingly impossible.
KISS.
73 de Brian/K3KO
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, AAR2EY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I don't know what has prompted this thread on your
Erik,
As Dr. Phil says: "How's that working for you?"
You practically speaking can only change your response to something
you don't like.
73 de K3KO
FINI
>I'm operating under the more hostile and
> combative operating conditions, i.e. in the middle of a contest, or if I
> decide I just have to
Erik,
It's call competition. Apparently, you are not aware that DXpeditions
have thousands of stations calling them at the same time. The minimum
power necessary INCLUDES trying to get through the din. The recent
BS7H operators described what they heard in their RX's as a "freight
train" contin
"There is no need to run 1000 watts" is just plain wrong.
It depends upon what your're trying to do.
If you're trying to make a QSO with a station half a world away under
tough propogation conditions, it may indeed be necessary. 1000 watts
may be the minimum power required to make the contact.
ve been perplexed why these modes that were developed
for weak
> > > signals on VHF and above and only have the most meager rudimentary
> > > exchange, would have any value on HF, relative to already
existing weak
> > > signal modes. Perhaps because it seemed "new,"
I've been playing around with this on 20M.
The new version which does the decoding starting at 48 seconds is a
big help.
Of the the 25 contacts I've made all were clearly audible. All could
have been worked on CW with no difficulty. They could have been
worked on PSK or other such modes too--mu
New revisions fill in some holes. Thanks.
One of the revision areas states:
"One JT65A user remarked that the 6 minutes length of time to conclude
the standard exchange was "agony", he did not like the wait.
Certainly, a JT65A QSO takes longer than the quick voice contacts or
a RTTY DX exchange
tic
problem. As far as I know, reducing the bandwidth helps down to a
limit (perhaps 500 Hz?).
>
> 73
> Patrick
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Brian A
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 2:07 PM
> Subjec
I'm perplexed by the edited dB figures.
On JT65A HF it doesn't make any sense that the values are -5 or -6 db
when the signal is strong and moving the S-meter to s5 or s6.
Here we use a 300Hz filter and the audio output is adjusted to read
about 0db with no signal. What I would have expected is
34 matches
Mail list logo
