I don't think 10% of each HF ham band is at all
reasonable. Perhaps 10% of each data b
and segment would be more reasonable. Your suggestion for automatic
sub bands would take an unreasonably large part of most data sub bands.
see my notes below in [brackets]]
73,
Chuck Mayfield - AA5J
But
You are pretty persistent, sir
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
AA6YQ comments below
*From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jose A. Amador
snip
Rating automatic operations as extremely unpopular with most is
exagerated. It seems to just reflect a extreme
+++ AA6YQ comments below
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jose A. Amador
You are pretty persistent, sir
+++ Thank you.
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
If you see a flaw in the above logic, please point it out.
I cannot read arabic,
expeditionradio wrote:
The use of the Automatic Sub Bands on HF ham radio for digital data
has been increasing tremendously over the past 5 years. Obviously,
automatic and similar types of operation have become extremely
popular with ham operators.
.
What nonsense. In fact it is a small
While I agree that over the past several decades, there has been
increased interest in digital HF modes, I would not include automatic
stations as having increased as much. There are some beginnings of a
rudimentary STANAG mode network that may eventually make it possible to
send e-mail
AA6YQ comments below
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jose A. Amador
snip
Rating automatic operations as extremely unpopular with most is
exagerated. It seems to just reflect a extreme point of view of a group
of hams with a certain point of view.
The use of the Automatic Sub Bands on HF ham radio for digital data
has been increasing tremendously over the past 5 years. Obviously,
automatic and similar types of operation have become extremely popular
with ham operators. This growth pattern appears to be continuing into
the future as more
