Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+technology\s+qso\'s\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+technology\s+qso\'s\s*$/: 6 ]

Total 6 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: Technology Qso's (score: 1): Author: "robert briggs" <vk3zl@bigpond.com>; Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:12:26 +1100; I note the shift of the original thread re "Spotting" to "Technology Qso's".. That really open's Pandoras Box, doesn't it. Claiming DXCC CW using computer generated Morse Code TX-RX would have to be; /archives//html/Topband/2005-11/msg00134.html (6,603 bytes)
2. Re: Topband: Technology Qso's (score: 1): Author: "R. Kevin Stover" <rkstover@mchsi.com>; Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:28:34 -0600; I have to disagree with that. I'd be willing to bet my perfectly spaced and formed "computer generated" Morse Code is a lot easier to copy than some of what passes for CW on the bands these days. Sen; /archives//html/Topband/2005-11/msg00137.html (7,891 bytes)
3. Re: Topband: Technology Qso's (score: 1): Author: "Jerry Keller - K3BZ" <k3bz@arrl.net>; Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:22:58 -0500; Bob VK3ZL wrote.... "Claiming DXCC CW using computer generated Morse Code TX-RX would have to be the ultimate fraud." Keyboard CW TX-RX is being done in most contests these days... apparently it's wi; /archives//html/Topband/2005-11/msg00141.html (8,291 bytes)
4. Re: Topband: Technology Qso's (score: 1): Author: "Ward Silver" <hwardsil@centurytel.net>; Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 08:32:10 -0800; Bob VK3ZL wrote.... "Claiming DXCC CW using computer generated Morse Code TX-RX would have to be the ultimate fraud." Being a troublemaker here...what else is new? Speaking as a CW operator whose hea; /archives//html/Topband/2005-11/msg00153.html (7,648 bytes)
5. Topband: Technology QSO's (score: 1): Author: Charles Bibb <zedkay@bellsouth.net>; Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:40:52 -0600; Pat, N8VW, wrote: If a contact is so hard to make that it requires coordination over a more reliable facility then what is the point of making that contact? Or, more to the point, I would say, "what; /archives//html/Topband/2005-11/msg00160.html (7,753 bytes)
6. Topband: technology qso's (score: 1): Author: "Jim Jarvis" <jimjarvis@verizon.net>; Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:42:40 -0500; I hate to prolong this thread, but it may have value. Jim, KR1S made the following points: VHF) far, another We set our own standards for what constitutes a valid QSO (within the rules and regs) and; /archives//html/Topband/2005-11/msg00164.html (8,594 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 6
Page: [1]