RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers

To: Neal Campbell <nealk3nc@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Cut Numbers
From: Ron W7FIA <fia@clouddancer.com>
Reply-to: fia@clouddancer.com
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 17:34:11 -0800 (PST)
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
Ah, the perfect signal, maybe about 50% of what you hear during a
contest.  When it's a shaky decode for a multiplier, it's very very
nice to have a nice pointer such as 599 to sort out what's decoded on
the screen.

> From: Neal Campbell <nealk3nc@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:17:42 -0500
> 
> We could replace the 599 with RYRY to slow things down for the old
> timers....
> 
> 73
> 
> Neal Campbell
> Abroham Neal LLC
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> > ------------ ORIGINAL MESSAGE ------------(may be snipped)
> >
> > On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 14:31:01 +0100, DK7UM wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Now seriously:  I always thought ham-radio to
> > >be a hobby. If miliseconds  count that much,
> > >is there still some enjoyment  left, to get in touch
> > >with friends?? May I doubt it!
> >
> > REPLY:
> >
> > It's not so much that milliseconds count (although they do) but that
> > sending 599 is pointless with RTTY. I can see some argument for
> > sending a signal report on CW or SSB because it sets the tone and
> > rhythm for what follows, but RTTY doesn't need that.
> >
> > 73, Bill W6WRT
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>