Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Re\:\s+\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+NAQP\s+RTTY\s+160M\s+Survey\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Re\:\s+\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+NAQP\s+RTTY\s+160M\s+Survey\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP RTTY 160M Survey (score: 1): Author: aa4lr@arrl.net (Bill Coleman); Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 21:58:40 -0400; Very interesting. This topic has come up before -- why not include RTTY on 160m? Traditionally, hams have found that 45 baud RTTY doesn't work so hot on 160m. The reason for this is the same reason t; /archives//html/RTTY/2002-08/msg00069.html (9,166 bytes)
2. [RTTY] Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP RTTY 160M Survey (score: 1): Author: w7ti@dslextreme.com (Bill Turner); Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 19:38:36 -0700; _________________________________________________________ There is another compensating factor on 160 meters which reduces many of the effects that Bill mentions: Most 160 meter QSOs are at a shorter; /archives//html/RTTY/2002-08/msg00070.html (8,106 bytes)
3. [RTTY] Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP RTTY 160M Survey (score: 1): Author: wa9als@starband.net (wa9als); Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:08:52 -0500; Why not test the waters a bit with a "160 RTTY Night" sometime?; /archives//html/RTTY/2002-08/msg00071.html (7,427 bytes)
4. [RTTY] Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP RTTY 160M Survey (score: 1): Author: w7ti@dslextreme.com (Bill Turner); Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 20:51:10 -0700; _________________________________________________________ Ok by me. We did this about a year ago and 'twas fun. How about this weekend, Saturday night? Sunday night? 1805 kHz? Bill, W7TI; /archives//html/RTTY/2002-08/msg00072.html (7,588 bytes)
5. [RTTY] Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP RTTY 160M Survey (score: 1): Author: jds@twistedoak.com (Jeff Stai); Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 21:11:57 -0700; I am thinking out loud here, but I do have some small experience with data recovery in a difficult channel... There are many ways to solve the problem (other than increasing the symbol rate), even wi; /archives//html/RTTY/2002-08/msg00073.html (8,204 bytes)
6. [RTTY] Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP RTTY 160M Survey (score: 1): Author: wk6i@twistedoak.com (Jeff Stai WK6I); Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 21:15:01 -0700; I am thinking out loud here, but I do have some small experience with data recovery in a difficult channel... There are many ways to solve the problem (other than increasing the symbol rate), even wi; /archives//html/RTTY/2002-08/msg00074.html (8,084 bytes)
7. [RTTY] Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP RTTY 160M Survey (score: 1): Author: w1to@adelphia.net (Tom Homewood); Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 08:47:28 -0400; The WAE CW contest is this weekend. Some people may be planning to operate in that contest. I have on 160 meter RTTY contact, KG4WX. 73, Tom, W1TO; /archives//html/RTTY/2002-08/msg00078.html (8,460 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]