Thank You for those of you who wrote advising me to deselect the "Enable
Attached RX Windows" option in the N1MM Logger Setup. I did that and now my
2Tone Text Windows appears automatically each time I start 2Tone. I'm
very happy to have that problem fixed!
Thank You for this helpful reflector!
73,
Dick- K9OM
In a message dated 2/26/2014 2:25:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rtty-request@contesting.com writes:
Send RTTY mailing list submissions to
rtty@contesting.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
rtty-request@contesting.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
rtty-owner@contesting.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of RTTY digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: 2Tone text window not showing (Richard Ferch)
2. Re: Being the fox - pileup running ( pcooper)
3. Re: RM-11708 FAQ posted (Don AA5AU)
4. Re: Broke 100,000 Q (Fabi) (iw1ayd - Salvatore Irato)
5. Re: RM-11708 FAQ posted (Michael Clarson)
6. Re: Broke 100,000 Q (Sven -DD1LI-)
7. Re: RM-11708 FAQ posted (Joe Subich, W4TV)
8. Re: RM-11708 FAQ posted (Kai)
9. Re: RM-11708 FAQ posted (Jay WS7I)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:35:13 -0500
From: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@storm.ca>
To: "rtty@contesting.com" <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] 2Tone text window not showing
Message-ID: <530E25D1.9090009@storm.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Dick,
Since you said "text window", and since you are also using MMTTY, I will
assume you are using 2Tone in one of the additional RX windows in N1MM
Logger, and it is N1MM Logger's Additional RX window(s) you can't find.
I believe this window has probably been minimized to the task bar. If
you have selected the "Enable Attached RX Windows" option in N1MM
Logger, which displays the text from the additional RX decoder in a one-
or two-line pane at the top of the main Digital Interface window, then
by default both the Additional RX Window and the 2Tone window are
minimized to the task bar.
Whether it happened automatically or because you minimized the window
manually, the way to recover this window is to click on the N1MM Logger
icon on the task bar. You will see more than one preview window
displayed just above the task bar - one for the main Entry window, one
for the second entry window if you are SO2V or SO2R, and one for each
additional RX window (titled DI1 RX Window 1, etc.). Click on that
preview window to restore the DI1 RX window.
73,
Rich VE3KI
K9OM wrote:
> I have a problem finding the 2Tone Text Window on my Quad Core, Windows
7
> Pro, CPU with 24" LED monitor.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:36:19 -0800
From: " pcooper" <pcooper@guernsey.net>
To: "James C. Hall, MD" <heartdoc@nwtcc.com>
Cc: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Being the fox - pileup running
Message-ID: <20140226093619.52B13671@m0048141.ppops.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Jamie and the group,
Good luck with this! It will be a blast whichever way you proceed, but as
others have suggested, split is better.
Don't forget also that you will be getting called by a lot of non-RTTY ops
as well, as many will be chasing W1AW/* for points, regardless of mode.
I'd also start split, as going simplex, then having to change will cause
untold confusion, especially to those who have been calling for a while.
Lastly, MMVARI may be useful, but it is does NOT handle FSK, only AFSK.
73 es GL!
Phil GU0SUP
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:47:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Don AA5AU <aa5au@bellsouth.net>
To: RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted
Message-ID:
<1393436835.57451.YahooMailNeo@web181602.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
I don't understand this one:
* Shouldn?t 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth data emissions be restricted to the
band segments where phone and image communications are permitted?-
While some commenters have argued for that, it is far beyond the scope of
the ARRL petition. It would require a complete reordering of the regulatory
scheme for the HF bands which would be controversial, to say the least.
I don't understand the part about having to completely reorder the
regulatory scheme. That sounds like a bunch of malarkey.
And are they trying to say the current proposal is not already
controversial enough?
Don AA5AU
>________________________________
> From: Ron Kolarik <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>
>To: RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:02 AM
>Subject: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted
>
>
>The ARRL FAQ is up
>http://www.arrl.org/rm-11708-faq
>I haven't had time to go through it yet.
>
>Ron
>K0IDT
>_______________________________________________
>RTTY mailing list
>RTTY@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:56:24 +0100
From: iw1ayd - Salvatore Irato <iw1ayd@gmail.com>
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Broke 100,000 Q (Fabi)
Message-ID: <530E2AC8.9090607@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Bravo Fabi!
Nice to be inside UR log several time, do you have some statics?
I know that the curiosity may kill the cat!
73 de iw1ayd Salvo
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:11:30 -0500
From: Michael Clarson <wv2zow@gmail.com>
To: Don AA5AU <aa5au@bellsouth.net>
Cc: RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted
Message-ID:
<CAFx0t24-EAe2s=Rst9OLhvP1R64J2a5ZjgoA0+4UDoFN0HFD6A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
If its applicable, yet beyond the scope of their petition, than they should
withdraw their petition and resubmit. Their petition wants to replace one
outmoded restriction (symbol rate) yet keep the also outmoded distinction
between data sent for voice or image being somehow different than data used
for text. In today's world, if its digital, its data. Of course, the FAQs
include no mention of the various PACTOR modes, which allow file transfers.
Suppose, using PACTOR I send a JPG file? Is that not image? An audio file
of a voice recording. Is that not digital voice? --Mike, WV2ZOW
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Don AA5AU <aa5au@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I don't understand this one:
>
> * Shouldn't 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth data emissions be restricted
> to the band segments where phone and image communications are permitted?-
> While some commenters have argued for that, it is far beyond the scope of
> the ARRL petition. It would require a complete reordering of the
regulatory
> scheme for the HF bands which would be controversial, to say the least.
>
> I don't understand the part about having to completely reorder the
> regulatory scheme. That sounds like a bunch of malarkey.
>
> And are they trying to say the current proposal is not already
> controversial enough?
>
> Don AA5AU
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Ron Kolarik <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>
> >To: RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
> >Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:02 AM
> >Subject: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted
> >
> >
> >The ARRL FAQ is up
> >http://www.arrl.org/rm-11708-faq
> >I haven't had time to go through it yet.
> >
> >Ron
> >K0IDT
> >_______________________________________________
> >RTTY mailing list
> >RTTY@contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:37:43 +0100
From: Sven -DD1LI- <dd1li@gmx.de>
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Broke 100,000 Q
Message-ID: <1393439863.26595.5.camel@Linux>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Hey Fabi,
Congrats..... it was 15 times me ;-)
by only 7000 Q's over the last 7 Years...
Hope to get more Time for Contesting in future.
73's
Sven -DD1LI-
Am Dienstag, den 25.02.2014, 12:15 -0500 schrieb Fabi:
> Dear rttyers,
>
> I am so pleased I want to share what for me is a joyful event. During
last weekend's NAQP I have broken the 100,000 Qs barrier using the call VA2UP
in contest, call that I started using in january 2007 as opposed to my
original call VE2FBD.
> I want to thank each and everyone of you for this and hope to get on to
another 100,000 in the next few years.
> See you in the contests,
>
> 73
>
> Fabi va2up
> http://va2up.com
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:50:28 -0500
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted
Message-ID: <530E3774.50501@subich.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
In fact that "complete reordering" is a lie. Other than allowing
RTTY and data in areas where voice and image are currently authorized
the *only( change might be to move the automatic digital segments to
the top of each band so that automatically controlled digital systems
could avail themselves of the wider bandwidth.
Allowing RTTY and DATA in the voice/image segments would automatically
enforce a 2.8 KHz bandwidth (or as the rules state "bandwidth no more
than a communications grade voice signal").
ARRL - including the CEO and Chief Counsel - are *telling lies* to
support their agenda.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 2/26/2014 12:47 PM, Don AA5AU wrote:
> I don't understand this one:
>
> * Shouldn?t 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth data emissions be restricted to
the band segments where phone and image communications are permitted?-
> While some commenters have argued for that, it is far beyond the scope
of the ARRL petition. It would require a complete reordering of the
regulatory scheme for the HF bands which would be controversial, to say the
least.
>
> I don't understand the part about having to completely reorder the
regulatory scheme. That sounds like a bunch of malarkey.
>
> And are they trying to say the current proposal is not already
controversial enough?
>
> Don AA5AU
>
>
>
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Ron Kolarik <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>
>> To: RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:02 AM
>> Subject: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted
>>
>>
>> The ARRL FAQ is up
>> http://www.arrl.org/rm-11708-faq
>> I haven't had time to go through it yet.
>>
>> Ron
>> K0IDT
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:08:01 -0500
From: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted
Message-ID: <530E3B91.20602@ieee.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Don,
This may help. Here are a couple of FAQ's they did not ask, here they are
with
my answers.
"What is the current limitation on bandwidth of digital emission (except
two-tone RTTY) at MF and HF?"
The answer is:
What is permitted today with no changes in the regs, is digital signals
(except
two-tone RTTY) with the following bandwidths:
160m - 200 kHz BW
80 m - 100 kHzBW
60m - 2.8 kHzBW [confined to the center of the channels, including two
tone RTTY]
40 m - 125 kHzBW
30 m - 50 kHzBW
20 m - 150 kHzBW
17 m - 42 kHzBW
15 m - 200 kHzBW
12 m - 40 kHzBW
10 m - 300 kHzBW
The above are slightly lower for non-Extra class licensees in some bands.
"What is the bandwidth limitation on two-tone RTTY today?"
All MF and HF bands: 1.5 kHz, except 60 m channels where 2.8 kHz is
permitted
for all including RTTY.
"What is the data bandwidth limitation asked for in RM-11802?"
All MF and HF bands, all digital data emissions, including RTTY, limited
to 2.8
kHz.
In the MF and HF phone bands there are likewise no statutory BW
limitations, but
the widest that I know off is D-Star digital voice which occupies about 6
kHz,
and good 'ole AM - also 6 kHz.
That's it. That's all there is.
73
Kai, KE4PT
On 2/26/2014 12:47 PM, Don AA5AU wrote:
> I don't understand this one:
>
> * Shouldn?t 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth data emissions be restricted to the
band segments where phone and image communications are permitted?-
> While some commenters have argued for that, it is far beyond the scope
of the ARRL petition. It would require a complete reordering of the
regulatory scheme for the HF bands which would be controversial, to say the
least.
>
> I don't understand the part about having to completely reorder the
regulatory scheme. That sounds like a bunch of malarkey.
>
> And are they trying to say the current proposal is not already
controversial enough?
>
> Don AA5AU
>
>
>
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Ron Kolarik<rkolarik@neb.rr.com>
>> To: RTTY<rtty@contesting.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:02 AM
>> Subject: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted
>>
>>
>> The ARRL FAQ is up
>> http://www.arrl.org/rm-11708-faq
>> I haven't had time to go through it yet.
>>
>> Ron
>> K0IDT
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:24:44 -0800
From: Jay WS7I <ws7ik7tj@gmail.com>
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted
Message-ID: <530E3F7C.7050200@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
That is a bunch of malarkey, they just don't want the phone operators in
opposition.
On 2/26/2014 9:47 AM, Don AA5AU wrote:
> I don't understand this one:
>
> * Shouldn?t 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth data emissions be restricted to
the band segments where phone and image communications are permitted?-
> While some commenters have argued for that, it is far beyond the scope
of the ARRL petition. It would require a complete reordering of the
regulatory scheme for the HF bands which would be controversial, to say the
least.
>
> I don't understand the part about having to completely reorder the
regulatory scheme. That sounds like a bunch of malarkey.
>
> And are they trying to say the current proposal is not already
controversial enough?
>
> Don AA5AU
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
------------------------------
End of RTTY Digest, Vol 134, Issue 53
*************************************
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|