hm
Is the purpose of a beacon not to help someone determine just what the
propagation conditions are on a particular day between various parts
of the world?
If one hears a ham transmitting as part of an actual QSO, would this
not also provide the exact same information?
I fail to se
At 11:51 PM 9/25/06, Patrick Soileau wrote:
>I fail to see where beacons are more important than QSOs.
They're not. Which is why the FCC rules do not permit US stations to
operate automatically controlled beacons on HF; and why W6WX and
KH6YY require STAs for their beacon operations.
73,
Mike
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:40:54 -0700, Chris Jewell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Whether the FCC (and other national administrations) treat violating
>an IARU Region band plan as violating the "good amateur practice"
>provision of the rules is unclear to me. However, an OO notice,
1. it is often difficult to determine an operator's location from his
or her callsign. TO5DX might be operating from any French territory.
Anyone using my signal as an indication of propagation to California
will reach the wrong conclusion.
2. The IARU beacons transmit at known power levels wi
Beacons are allocated space in all three IARU regional band plans.
This is as much to protect live operators from being QRM'd by beacons
as it is to protect beacon users from QRM from live operators.
Given that the beacons don't have busy frequency detectors and
pragmatically couldn't QSY even
Dave Bernstein wrote:
> So my longwinded answer to your question, Bill, is the human operator
> is at fault, as he or she is ignoring the band plan.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
Seems reasonable when explained that way.
While it is not a problem for people with modern radios
and well calibrated
Although I admire and support the concept, deployment, and technical
achievement of the NCDXA International Beacon System, I view this system as a
"secondary user" of the amateur radio spectrum with all the rights and
privileges of a secondary user.
Certainly the goal of avoiding interference t
At 09:10 PM 9/25/06, expeditionradio wrote:
>Although these band plans do not have the full force of law,
>there is general agreement that a properly operated amateur radio
>station should normally operate within such band plans
Well, "general agreement" is an interesting assertion by the NCDXF.
Please explain how did you define someone being on 14100? Their mark was
on 14100, their space was on 14100? And what sort of tolerance you used?
How did you measure their frequencies?
73!
Risto, W6RK
On Sat, September 23, 2006 14:46, expeditionradio wrote:
> RTTY Hall of Shame
>
>
> Here is a
Hello list. I have been trying to implement support for the Contestia
and RTTYM modes in a fairly new digimode app, fldigi (www.w1hkj.com). It
currently has an Olivia modem which is pretty much taken verbatim from
Pawel Jalocha's reference code. So far, I have had very little luck
getting it to wor
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> RTTY Hall of Shame
>
> Here is a list of some of the RTTY operators transmitting
> on the international IARU beacon frequency 14100.0kHz today.
>
> 73---Bonnie KQ6XA
>
> Saturday 23 SEP 2006
>
> WM3T/4 (repe
Anthony,
Is a 1KHz guard band really required? At 22 WPM, these beacons are not very
wide bandwidth-wise, something like 88 Hz. So, if you were operating at
14100.4 you were not really interfering - as if they ran a very narrow
filter they would be able to hear the CW beacons with no QRM from you.
12 matches
Mail list logo
