Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:k.siwiak@ieee.org: 89 ]

Total 89 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] some interesting stats (score: 1)
Author: Kai Siwiak <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:36:40 -0400
I was very much interested in seeing the statistics that are available at: http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/rtty/2008-June/025760.html Can you please tell me if w9ol selectively works LoTW users
/archives//html/RTTY/2008-06/msg00146.html (7,167 bytes)

2. Re: [RTTY] [MMTTY] Fwd: ARLB006 NTIA: No Objection to Additional Data Modes on 60 Meters (score: 1)
Author: Kai Siwiak <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:10:51 -0400
Hi Joe, Looks like ARRL are incrementally seeing the light. I've included my recommendation for how we can send the 170 Hz shift / 45.45 baud RTTY we all know and love, and adhere to the FCC/NTIA req
/archives//html/RTTY/2012-03/msg00165.html (14,241 bytes)

3. Re: [RTTY] [MMTTY] Fwd: ARLB006 NTIA: No Objection to Additional Data Modes on 60 Meters (score: 1)
Author: Kai Siwiak <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:16:59 -0400
In my previous post (below) I omitted a comma in the tone frequency list. The corrected line is: [ComboList] Mark=2125,2000,1700,1445,1415,1275,1170,1000,915,660 73 Kai, KE4PT _______________________
/archives//html/RTTY/2012-03/msg00166.html (15,371 bytes)

4. Re: [RTTY] [MMTTY] Re: BoD votes LoTW initiatives (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:00:12 -0400
Why would you want to ban 45.45 baud 170 Hz shift RTTY by suggesting a "100 Hz or less" bandwidth rule?? The occupied bandwidth [ITU-R and FCC definitions] of RTTY is 250 Hz, greater than that of JT6
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00107.html (12,797 bytes)

5. Re: [RTTY] [MMTTY] Re: BoD votes LoTW initiatives (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:59:52 -0400
Joe I agree that the 2800 Hz BW now on the table is way too much, except for the 60 m band channels for which that specific 2800 Hz rule was written. The current FCC rules for below 10m band (except
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00108.html (15,128 bytes)

6. Re: [RTTY] ARRL issues Official Reply: Re 2.8KHz HF digital BW (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:07:29 -0400
Hi Chen The Henning Harmuth story was really interesting. I've run into his works during my tenure with Ultra Wideband and IEEE802 standards work. And folks worry here about 2.8 kHz BW signals! Thank
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00122.html (11,325 bytes)

7. Re: [RTTY] ARRL issues Official Reply: Re 2.8KHz HF digital BW (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:06:26 -0400
Hi Salvo, With all respect, and I don't want to criticize you but, when you say "ARRL body it's the same that denied the existence of RTTY by itself for the DXCC" you are of course referring to an ex
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00139.html (16,372 bytes)

8. Re: [RTTY] ARRL and band/mode awards (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:50:59 -0400
Hi Bill, Two issues here I guess. One is ARRL awards -- DXCC is limited to just three unique but broad modulation formats: CW, Phone, Digital on a plethora of combinations of bands. I think you have
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00150.html (9,923 bytes)

9. Re: [RTTY] digital signal on 14240 (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 12:18:23 -0400
John, Tom, I plotted 30 deg relative from NYC, and 90 deg relative GW. The two bearings cross near the southern tip of India, but could be a transmitter in Afghanistan, northern Iran, Iraq, Ukaine ..
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-08/msg00021.html (8,668 bytes)

10. [RTTY] Intruder on RTTY 14.240 MHz (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:35:46 -0400
I've collected and plotted the great circle bearings to the intruder on 14.240, RTTY from several stations. Please see: http://timederivative.com/KE4PT/intruder/Intruder-20m-RTTY.jpg Bearings take wi
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-08/msg00030.html (7,487 bytes)

11. Re: [RTTY] Fw: Intruder on RTTY 14.240 MHz (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 09:28:11 -0400
Final graphic: http://timederivative.com/KE4PT/intruder/Intruder-20m-RTTY.jpg Thanks. 73 Kai, KE4PT Thank you Tom KA2D IARU R1 monitoring located the signal in Moscow: http://www.iarums-r1.org/iarums
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-08/msg00035.html (9,416 bytes)

12. Re: [RTTY] 300hz or 500hz IF filter? (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:42:05 -0400
The theoretical bandwidth of 170 Hz shift 45.45 baud RTTY is just under 250 Hz. 73 Kai, KE4PT The -6 dB bandwidth of the INRAD "300 Hz" filter is shown as 340 Hz which is slightly less than the theor
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-08/msg00084.html (9,567 bytes)

13. Re: [RTTY] 300hz or 500hz IF filter? (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 08:15:54 -0400
Absolutely incorrect. Consult ITU-R SM.1138: BW = 2M + 2DK; D=shift/2; M = Baud/2 K = 1.2 (typically) BWrtty=2M+2DK = Baud + shift*1.2 =249.5 Hz If you consider the effect of the 33 ms (1.5 bit) stop
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-08/msg00090.html (12,378 bytes)

14. Re: [RTTY] 300hz or 500hz IF filter? (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 08:39:33 -0400
Hi David, Update of my previous answer ... For reference, the specs for the Collins 300 and 500 Hz filter used with FT-857D and FT-817 are at: http://www.rockwellcollins.com/Capabilities_and_Markets/
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-08/msg00091.html (9,834 bytes)

15. Re: [RTTY] 300hz or 500hz IF filter? (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:58:54 -0400
The RTTY elements are either 22 ms (bits and start bit) or between 22 and 44 ms (1 to 2 stop bit lengths), usually 33 ms (1.5 bit lengths).. I've never heard of a half bit length tone (11 ms) sent in
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-08/msg00095.html (14,433 bytes)

16. Re: [RTTY] 300hz or 500hz IF filter? (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:45:35 -0400
Or as is oft quipped, "In Theory, theory and practice are the same, in Practice, they are not!" -Kai, KE4PT de Paul, W8AEF ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped) REPLY: Jay has summed it up well. Practic
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-08/msg00102.html (10,826 bytes)

17. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Filters: 250hz vs. 500hz (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:59:53 -0400
Yes this is good practical advise. Remember also that whether you employ a 300, 500 Hz or even 2.8 kHz filter in the radio, the FINAL filtering is software-implemented in your RTTY demodulator softwa
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-08/msg00104.html (20,484 bytes)

18. Re: [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 09:55:17 -0400
Hi John, "clyde" is 'interesting' in Morse, and it has the dreaded "de" that causes so much heartburn for RTTY contesters! 73, Kazimierz, KE4PT [ I go by "Kai"] On 10/3/2013 8:40 AM, john wrote: try
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00073.html (9,505 bytes)

19. Re: [RTTY] 160 m (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 00:00:48 -0400
For the same transmitter PEP, JT65 outperforms RTTY by about 29 dB (a power ratio of 800). That will make a big difference on 160 m. 73 Kai, KE4PT Rick - WU6W ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped) There
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00140.html (9,407 bytes)

20. Re: [RTTY] 10 Meters LOTW (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:47:22 -0400
Kind folks, For LOTW skeds for WAS-TPA or anything else: http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/index.php?board=lotw 73 Kai, KE4PT k0bx@arrl.net I am retired so I can meet anytime. Joe K0BX Honor Roll RTTY S
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00207.html (7,849 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu