Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:akozak@hourglass.com: 188 ]

Total 188 documents matching your query.

101. Re: [RTTY] To DE or not to DE (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 21:50:49 -0400
A particularly annoying example: Late this afternoon a few rare (for this contest) zones popped up - 12 Chile and 7 Costa Rica. The pileups are pure QRM anyway, but a number of callers decided that i
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-09/msg00147.html (11,317 bytes)

102. Re: [RTTY] To DE or not to DE (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:00:02 -0400
I admit to not suffering fools gladly. Even so, are people so stupid or lazy as to not think at all??? A RTTY pileup such as I heard on a single frequency lasts 30 seconds or longer before it subside
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-09/msg00175.html (14,335 bytes)

103. Re: [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 09:43:49 -0400
As you might say to Sheldon Cooper: It is a non-optional social convention. A TU, 73 or GL won't kill anyone! 73, GL and TU, Al AB2ZY I noticed that no one added TU to their QSOs. I guess a simple "t
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00004.html (7,721 bytes)

104. Re: [RTTY] jt-65 and jt-9 frequency usage (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 11:03:29 -0400
Out of curiousity, do folks think there any real benefit score-wise in operating cheek to jowl between .080 and .100? Psychologically I believe it is probably so, since I assume all hams are OCD wrac
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00111.html (9,816 bytes)

105. Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 21:32:16 -0500
A Google search returns lots of discussions of this proposal going back more than a decade. Some of the arguments against contain the same spittle flecked invective hurled against the ARRL on a daily
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-11/msg00082.html (10,218 bytes)

106. Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:09:23 -0500
There is a certain logic to the reponse, but it shows a detachment from reality. It is correct that there are no bandwidth limits today, but it takes two to communicate. The symbol rate limitation im
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-11/msg00114.html (15,032 bytes)

107. Re: [RTTY] Hints and tips on how to file comments on RM-11708 (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 18:05:33 -0500
Joe, To distill what you've said several times down to a single sentence, innovation in amateur radio digital modes should be limited to doing the same with less, not doing more with the same. While
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-11/msg00286.html (18,989 bytes)

108. Re: [RTTY] Proposed "Retro RTTY Contest" (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 21:55:45 -0500
What I remember about the KSR-33 as a computer terminal in the early 1970's was that it was anything but light; far more mechanical than electrical; and if you upended it to fit it in the trunk of a
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00038.html (9,775 bytes)

109. Re: [RTTY] RM 11708 Comments (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 21:25:38 -0500
There are an awful lot of common phrases that appear to be cut-and-paste type responses. Also a lot of people that are in favor of the rule change so they can use Pactor IV. The latter are bound to b
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00129.html (7,922 bytes)

110. Re: [RTTY] Wow - thanks Dr Flowers! (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:44:57 -0500
As I said in my own comment, this is a straw-man argument. The symbol rate has the effect (intended or not) of capping the bandwidth. Although you are technically correct that the current regulations
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00186.html (14,631 bytes)

111. Re: [RTTY] FREQUENCY IN USE BY ... (JT65/JT9) (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:28:53 -0500
I, for one, don't suffer fools or a-holes gladly and my first instinct (however adolescent and misguided) if subject to the sorts of antics described here would be retaliation. One thing I will say i
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-01/msg00059.html (11,997 bytes)

112. Re: [RTTY] Comments by K4SBZ.. (JT65/JT9) (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 21:41:45 -0500
True story: During the CQ WW or WPX phone contest last year, a guy starts calling CQ DX on, maybe, 28.600. Now, the frequency is already occupied by a non-US station running in the contest and there
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-01/msg00093.html (12,246 bytes)

113. Re: [RTTY] Roundup observations - a bit long! (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 17:41:24 -0500
That's my theory. When like 63 multipliers are from CONUS and Canada, it's clear that the ARRL takes the 'A' in 'ARRL' seriously. Al AB2ZY ________________________________________ From: RTTY [rtty-bo
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-01/msg00139.html (11,741 bytes)

114. Re: [RTTY] HAL ST-8000 (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 23:40:46 -0500
"I did not test this unit because I do not have the power cord" Uh huh. The guy lists nothing but used electronics yet does not have access to a standard IEC power cord? All you need to do is throw a
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-01/msg00171.html (7,294 bytes)

115. Re: [RTTY] BARTG This Weekend. (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:19:05 -0500
If it's not in the rules, then it is not a rule! Al AB2ZY ________________________________________ From: RTTY [rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dave Greig [daven3buo@att.net] Sent: Friday, J
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-01/msg00336.html (9,661 bytes)

116. Re: [RTTY] FSK Keying on an Icom 7800 Problem (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 12:36:14 -0500
In order for any circuit to work that uses "parasitic" power, the host has to source a minimum of the switching transistor's ICsat. Use a VOM and measure the current when you ground the keying pin of
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00004.html (12,635 bytes)

117. Re: [RTTY] FSK Keying on an Icom 7800 Problem (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 23:33:11 -0500
Bipolar transistors are current operated devices, not voltage, You want enough current through the base-emitter junction to drive the transistor into saturation. At 45.45 baud, the higher recovery ti
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00007.html (11,358 bytes)

118. Re: [RTTY] Thanks for the Q's (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:08:09 -0500
Heh, heh, heh....methinks you are seriously underestimating people! My big laugh for the weekend came late Sunday afternoon. I came across a huge pileup. A VE5 (VE5MX, I think, don't remember offhan
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00205.html (7,476 bytes)

119. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:30:02 -0500
Michael makes an excellent point. Content, modulation mode and bandwidth are intertwined when it comes to analog signals. With digital, all transmissions are syntactically identical, differering only
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00335.html (11,628 bytes)

120. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:06:14 -0500
This straw man has quite some legs. You are 100% correct that wide bandwidth modes are legal as long as the symbol rate is limited. And that might be a problem if there actually were enough idiots ob
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00364.html (17,782 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu