Thanks Joe.
I have been using WSJT since 2001 and cringe every time I hear it called a
QRP mode.
3.) He was running way way too much power. I never operate with more
than 30 watts {its a low power mode.. I worked VK5BC with 30w on TB
try that with CW)
JT65 and JT9 are *not*
I have been using WSJT since 2001 and cringe every time I hear it called a
QRP mode.
I want to put this to rest with just a few more comments.
While we call these digital modes, they are really baseband audio
transmissions run through SSB transmitters. They are subject to all the
dynamic
On 1/2/2014 9:14 AM, Tom W8JI wrote:
They should be off someplace out of the way of weak CW signals, not
nestled up against weak signal CW areas.
Again you ignore the obvious. This rant, that you always start, occurs
every six months or so when you hear trash generated by ONE of the dozen
in the audio inputs of the SSB transmitters!
73,
Charlie, K4OTV
-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tom W8JI
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 12:14 PM
To: topband@contesting.com; k...@vhfdx.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Digial mode spurious
While we call these digital modes, they are really baseband audio
transmissions run through SSB transmitters. They are subject to all
the dynamic range problems and limitations of SSB transmitters
processing the same types of audio tones.
Like it or not, all digital transmitters and all
ops run Class C amps.
Carl
KM1H
- Original Message - From: Joe Subich, W4TV li...@subich.com
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Digial mode spurious issues
1 } Improperly adjusted sound card interface i.e. over driven
. Re: Digital mode spurious issues (Tom W8JI)
--
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 17:10:27 -0500
From: Mike Greenway k...@bellsouth.net
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Digial mode spurious issues
Message
-0500 From: Mike
Greenway k...@bellsouth.net To: topband@contesting.com Subject:
Re: Topband: Digial mode spurious issues Message-ID:
52A7C61BC0414D61A4DD6EB286A01A81@SHACK Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
I don?t am still puzzled why the digital modes decided to use the
1837 to 1839 area
I don’t am still puzzled why the digital modes decided to use the 1837 to 1839
area with the size of the 160 M band. I know the SSB guys use a lot of the
1840-1900 area but 1900 to 2000 is usable isn’t it? I rarely hear much up
there and 3 or 4 khz up there would never be missed. Probably not
On 12/31/2013 5:10 PM, Mike Greenway wrote:
I don’t am still puzzled why the digital modes decided to use the
1837to 1839 area with the size of the 160 M band.
For the same reason the SSB guys insist on using 1840-1850 ...
with their significantly smaller band (1810-1850 in some cases)
Region
Absolutely! From what I see from my QTH in SW MO, 1845 would be a good
place for JT65 to move to. There is a ragchew group that meets on 1850, but
seldom is there much activity below that.
I seldom listen much above 1900. Maybe you're right, that would be a better
place. But they definitely need
11 matches
Mail list logo
