[digitalradio] KN4LF Daily LF/MF/HF Radio Propagation Outlook #2005-016

2005-04-21 Thread Thomas Giella KN4LF
The KN4LF Daily LF/MF/HF Radio Propagation Outlook #2005-016 has been published on 2200 UTC Thursday April 21, 2005 at http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf6.htm . 73 & GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF Retired Space & Atmospheric Weather Forecaster Plant City, FL, USA Grid Square EL87WX Lat & Long 27 58 33.

[digitalradio] Reminder - SP DX RTTY Contest 1200Z, Apr 23 to 1200...

2005-04-21 Thread digitalradio
We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. SP DX RTTY Contest 1200Z, Apr 23 to 1200Z, Apr 24 Date: Saturday, April 23, 2005 Time: All Day SP DX RTTY Contest 1200Z, Apr 23 to 1200Z, Apr 24 The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Link

RE: [digitalradio] RE: Winlink Scanning

2005-04-21 Thread Rick Williams
Skip, Anyone attempting to connect to a PMBO is really no different than any other ham calling CQ in the hopes of receiving a reply, except that in the case of having a PMBO potentially on frequency it is more likely that a contact can be made. It is dramatically more efficient than any other thi

RE: [digitalradio] Automated stations and W1AW

2005-04-21 Thread Rick Williams
Like so many things in life, there is no perfect answer, but the rules could be changed to reflect a consensus if that became necessary. But there is no absolute right or wrong, other than interpreting the current rules. At this time, the rules say that you don't own a frequency but if you are al

[digitalradio] RE: Winlink Scanning

2005-04-21 Thread Skip Teller
> >>>By distributing callers across multiple scanned frequencies, the > incidence of multiple callers colliding on a single frequency is > reduced. Such collisions prevent the PMBO from connecting with any > of the competing callers, increasing time-from-request-to- > connection. If the callers ca

Re: [digitalradio] Automated stations and W1AW

2005-04-21 Thread Danny C Douglas
Then 99.9 percent would be WRONG. No one has that right. Quoting Richard A Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I think 99.9% of Amateurs would say YES! > > On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:22:04 -0400 "Andrew J. O'Brien" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I disagree, I was in a QSO and should not have to end it

Re: [digitalradio] Automated stations and W1AW

2005-04-21 Thread Richard A Powers
I think 99.9% of Amateurs would say YES!   On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:22:04 -0400 "Andrew J. O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I disagree, I was in a QSO and should not have to end it just because they need the frequency. I agree that it is a polite thing to do, move to accommodate the

Re: [digitalradio] Automated stations and W1AW

2005-04-21 Thread Danny C Douglas
I must disagree that the broadcast are unnecessary or non-productive. There are many around the world (and still a lot in the USA) who do not have equal capability of obtaining ham radio news, as we do. Cheap internet capability is not available to everyone. I used to listen to them weekly,