Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+RTTY\s+vs\s+PSK31\s+on\s+Field\s+Day\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] RTTY vs PSK31 on Field Day (score: 1)
Author: Tim Goeppinger via RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 04:44:11 +0000 (UTC)
I would like to write a letter to QST to hopefully get published by Field Day.   My concern is that the North Americanhams have taken a wrong turn about 15 years ago for digital modes for ARRL Field
/archives//html/RTTY/2017-02/msg00195.html (8,314 bytes)

2. Re: [RTTY] RTTY vs PSK31 on Field Day (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:04:45 +0000
-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: In a real life emergency, the mode to use is SSB. It's much faster, doesn't require a computer and conveys urgency much better than any digital mode. I l
/archives//html/RTTY/2017-02/msg00196.html (7,804 bytes)

3. Re: [RTTY] RTTY vs PSK31 on Field Day (score: 1)
Author: Jim Rhodes <jimk0xu@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 23:15:55 -0600
Yes, but sometimes you need to move data. Jim Rhodes K0XU _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
/archives//html/RTTY/2017-02/msg00197.html (8,592 bytes)

4. Re: [RTTY] RTTY vs PSK31 on Field Day (score: 1)
Author: "Jeff AC0C" <keepwalking188@ac0c.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 23:37:08 -0600
For FD, run both modes. You will have better Q rates on RTTY but it's possible you may run out of guys to work if FD activity on RTTY is light that year. So moving to PSK will let you keep running bu
/archives//html/RTTY/2017-02/msg00198.html (8,987 bytes)

5. Re: [RTTY] RTTY vs PSK31 on Field Day (score: 1)
Author: Al Hanzl <alhanzl@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 04:22:40 -0500
Ii would be good encourage the use of RTTY in your letter. We could use more activity on FD although there was a lot of activity last year if I recall. We set up for it last year after several years
/archives//html/RTTY/2017-02/msg00199.html (10,285 bytes)

6. Re: [RTTY] RTTY vs PSK31 on Field Day (score: 1)
Author: Bob Burns W9BU <w9bu_lists@rlburns.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:47:02 -0500
On 2/23/2017 11:44 PM, Tim Goeppinger via RTTY wrote: I would like to write a letter to QST to hopefully get published by Field Day. My concern is that the North Americanhams have taken a wrong turn
/archives//html/RTTY/2017-02/msg00201.html (9,491 bytes)

7. Re: [RTTY] RTTY vs PSK31 on Field Day (score: 1)
Author: Ryan Noguchi via RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:01:39 +0000 (UTC)
PSK31 can have an edge over RTTY when operating QRP with portable antennas, like many do on Field Day. But most of these Field Day stations are likely using FLDIGI and therefore could just as easily
/archives//html/RTTY/2017-02/msg00203.html (9,667 bytes)

8. Re: [RTTY] RTTY vs PSK31 on Field Day (score: 1)
Author: Ryan Noguchi via RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:04:34 +0000 (UTC)
thinks that they need a PSK31 station in order to attract and interest new hams long before they think about a RTTY station. A PSK31 station running Fldigi, as most probably are, transforms into an
/archives//html/RTTY/2017-02/msg00205.html (8,686 bytes)

9. Re: [RTTY] RTTY vs PSK31 on Field Day (score: 1)
Author: Stanley Zawrotny <k4sbz.stan@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:40:31 -0500
Tim, Regardless of the technical pros and cons, the main thing is that the majority of the everyday PSK31 operators don't know how to operate RTTY. Many of them don't even know how to modify their ma
/archives//html/RTTY/2017-02/msg00206.html (10,146 bytes)

10. Re: [RTTY] RTTY vs PSK31 on Field Day (score: 1)
Author: Thom <ki8w@ki8w.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:09:17 +0000
In the past I have t5ried RTTY during Field Day and got zero contacts. Maybe PSK is ok but in an emergancy situation I would think a true error correcting mode would be better. Just my opinion of cou
/archives//html/RTTY/2017-02/msg00207.html (11,250 bytes)

11. Re: [RTTY] RTTY vs PSK31 on Field Day (score: 1)
Author: Al Hanzl <alhanzl@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:28:46 -0500
Our club, led by K2YG, gave a tutorial on RTTY and N1MM at a pre Field Day planning meeting last year. It generated a lot of interest, especially with new and inactive hams. K2AL Secretary, NPARC Sen
/archives//html/RTTY/2017-02/msg00208.html (11,607 bytes)

12. Re: [RTTY] RTTY vs PSK31 on Field Day (score: 1)
Author: Ryan Noguchi via RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:31:10 +0000 (UTC)
Does anyone here have any statistics or even anecdotal observations they could share of the relative number of PSK QSOs vs RTTY QSOs in last year's Field Day? Because what little I've seen by Google
/archives//html/RTTY/2017-02/msg00209.html (8,857 bytes)

13. Re: [RTTY] RTTY vs PSK31 on Field Day (score: 1)
Author: Matthew Pitts via RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:56:45 -0500
I did run both RTTY and PSK31 last year for K8CY on Field Day. Matthew Pitts N8OHU On 2/24/2017 12:31 PM, Ryan Noguchi via RTTY wrote: In my opinion, if the op is experienced enough to know both PSK
/archives//html/RTTY/2017-02/msg00210.html (9,549 bytes)

14. Re: [RTTY] RTTY vs PSK31 on Field Day (score: 1)
Author: Ryan Noguchi via RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 15:49:54 +0000 (UTC)
Among the 63 contacts the club made, do you recall the split between RTTY and PSK31? Did you observe a lot of mayhem in the PSK watering hole, as some have reported? (Butting in on a QSO in progress
/archives//html/RTTY/2017-02/msg00213.html (8,729 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu