Launcher module, you will have to give it permission to run. Perhaps there is,
or will eventually be, a method to let Vista know that this program is OK to
run anytime.
73,
Rick, KV9U
they have had no problem). wxLogbook seems
to work just fine with Vista.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Mark Milburn wrote:
> Have you tried opening up the Donner interface? There
> is a limited amount of reduction by adjusting the
> control inside the box.
>
> Also, what software are you using? MixW
I know that some of the high cost interfaces have CW ports to key the
rigs, but with a basic interface connected directly to your computer,
can you key CW using Windows XP or Vista? Or are the timing issues such
that it is no longer practical to do this?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote
far has worked the
best for us, even though a pain to get it tuned in.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Bill Ayer wrote:
> Rick,
>
> We had previously used AMTOR FEC for net traffic. We tried BPSK MFSK
> as I remember, and probably some others. More recently also Olivia.
> MT-63
lation. Most of the lower cost ones will
control PTT and isolate the audio lines. But your rig may not need a
special interface for rig control if it can use an RS-232 serial
connection.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> I wonder if we can get some general updates about the comm
variables. Or maybe there is something
available that is more recent than the excellent UK critique that was
made of several modes a few year ago?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> Would you like to see DominoEX in MIXW?
>
> * We need an experienced Windows sou
Bill,
What other digital modes did you compare it to and why did you find
MT-63 superior?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Bill Ayer wrote:
> That's correct. Alabama Navy MARS for some years now, and many other
> states both Army and Navy use MT-63 for net traffic. It is far
> superio
at 25 wpm, but maybe we would be able
to decode better than the machine?
I would like to hear of other experiences for those who have tested the
various modes and found what worked best for them under extreme QRN
conditions.
73,
Rick, KV9U
expeditionradio wrote:
>> 1000/32 would
We tested that some time ago and it was one of the least effective modes
against noise. Which makes sense when you look at the minimum tolerable
S/N ratio which is around -5 dB at the 1000 Hz bandwidth.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Bill McLaughlin wrote:
> Hello Rick,
>
> Try MT63 under
nk is the best one for these kinds of conditions.
73,
Rick, KV9U
There seem to be an unusually large number of folks who post on the
internet who need a Dale Carnegie course on how to "win friends and
influence people." Unless, they really are trying to act counter to what
they want for an outcome.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Champa wrote:
> Bruce,
>
for ham radio,
but it is getting better. However, I would not be willing to give up the
DX Lab suite of programs and Multipsk any time soon.
73,
Rick, KV9U
martin beekhuis wrote:
>> Hello all
>> This is my first post here because now I have a problem. My wife got
>> me a n
s the display to
drastically dim and alert you to something that you need to pay close
attention to. Kind of hard to miss:)
73,
Rick, KV9U
jerloch wrote:
> Hello all
> This is my first post here because now I have a problem. My wife got
> me a new laptop with, of course Vista installed. N
Bob,
Without even listening, I would have guessed it is a SWBC station
operating under DRM.
OK, I turned on the rig here and I can still hear it. Very similar to
ham DRM, except, of course, much wider.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
> On 7147 KHz at about 14:00 UTC today th
successful using HF if the
distance is very far. In my area, that might be 20 miles or so:(
73,
Rick, KV9U
Walt DuBose wrote:
> Dave,
>
> In the ARRL's defense, when they looked at WinLink at their Board Meeting,
> there
> was nothing else on the technology front that coul
Bob,
Without even listening, I would have guessed it is a SWBC station
operating under DRM.
OK, I turned on the rig here and that is what it almost surely is. Very
similar to ham DRM, except, of course, much wider.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
> On 7147 KHz at about 14
make certain decisions. In fact, the FCC made
decisions contrary to the ARRL's recommendations.
73,
Rick, KV9U
DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
> However, I do know that if 5,000 or 10,000 thoughful responses were sent
> to the ARRL Division Directors with a Cc to the ARRL Pres
ignificant number with
such a small population of hams.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Walt DuBose wrote:
> But is 1471 such a large number given that there are about 500,000 active
> amateur radio operators in the U.S. and more than 200,000 on HF?
>
> If there were 10 times the number of responses
had
thought was 3.5 kHz and now is recommending 3.0 kHz, then doesn't that
suggest there must be some kind of board policy change from several
years ago?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Walt DuBose wrote:
> Bonnie,
>
> I do think the time is right; but, I think it has been for several year
SK's. And the amount of space needed for PSK31 seems miniscule. Perhaps
the peak use of these very narrow modes has stabilized and often they
can all be accomodated within the passband of an SSB signal width.
73,
Rick, KV9U
n6vl wrote:
> John,
>
> I would be perfectly conten
gs to work perfectly or it does not work at all. I could not imagine
using it as a major communications method if I was using it for blue
water boating or other fairly dangerous activities. I could see it used
as a secondary or tertiary backup for other systems.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas
would definitely not be legal to do this with Pactor 3
in the text data area under the current rules here in the U.S.. It only
recently became legal here on the narrow (500 Hz and less) to send
analog or digital FAX in the text data portions of the bands.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Leigh L Klotz, Jr
If this is true, wouldn't it be a major reversal from past FCC
recommendations?
My understanding was that some time back (decade or so) the FCC wanted
to regulate by bandwidth, rather than mode, and the ARRL strongly
opposed it at that time and the idea was dropped.
73,
Rick, KV9U
get that changed for a very long time.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John B. Stephensen wrote:
> The ARRL deleted other changes below 30 MHz, but wants to change the
> voice/image segment bandwidth from the existing "communications
> quality voice" to 3 kHz.
>
> 73,
>
> John
> KD6OZH
just casually listening if the frequency was clear.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote:
> I join the voices of the many who call for the release of source code
> for this busy detection and any patents under royalty-free license. If
> SCAMP's busy detector, for exampl
Usually, I can follow this stuff pretty well, but for some reason, I am
missing just what is the change that ARRL made to their original proposal?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Dave Bernstein wrote:
> This was just posted:
>
> http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/03/23/101/?nc=1
&
, KV9U
KT2Q wrote:
> Rick...
>
>
>> I got the impression in talking to the WinDRM
>> users on 7173 SSTV group,
>> that it worked with lower than +10 dB S/N. Maybe
>> around 7 dB?
>>
>
> For what it's worth, I did some path simulator
> tes
ons. I
am assuming this has a lot to do with the number of dropped packets.
73,
Rick, KV9U
KT2Q wrote:
> Rick,
>
> WinDRM does need a fairly good SNR. The threshold
> seems to be around 10db. Of course it's much
> easier to achieve that on the upper HF bands so
> it
.
Is there a web site for DRMDV?
73,
Rick, KV9U
KT2Q wrote:
> Sergio,
>
>
>> To KT2Q: What do you mean for DRMDV? 73, EA3DU
>>
>
> The DRMDV software is a variant of WinDRM. It has
> the ability to work with a lower S/N than WinDRM.
> The trade-off is
other stations come back. Usually will try with
PSK31 at first even though it may not be the best when the QRN gets bad.
I want to see how DEX (Domino EX), especially DEX/FEC works under those
condx.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote:
> Guys. I dont have the figures here, but I would
lly works with a straight key with
the Argo without any wiring changes:)
73,
Rick, KV9U
bruce mallon wrote:
> Rick ...
>
> 99% of us took the code and don't use it. BUT that
> said nothing wrong with thoes who are GOOD at and
> enjoy the mode I myself love lissing to th
CW DXing with "LID"
comments. Can't really do that as easily with digital modes:)
73,
Rick, KV9U
Radiotronic Gizmo wrote:
>
> I really don’t want to start a CW vs anything war here – really I
> DON’T.. but you are dead wrong on CW – it is faster to talk with CW
> than
ger transmissions of a roundtable discussion. Of
course with weaker stations, you get nothing:(
73,
Rick, KV9U
Simon Brown wrote:
> I agree - listening to SSB can really turn one off Ham Radio for good,
> I don't think I've ever seen an argument on digital modes.
>
>
voice bandwidth) would be in the voice/image portions?
An alternative would be to have wide BW modes at the upper ends of what
is now the text data areas, but there is not all that much room
available on some of the bands.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Chris Jewell wrote:
> kv9u writes:
> > What rul
highway, I was able to open up a LOS link to a more distant tower
about 7 or 8 miles.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Champa wrote:
> Rick,
>
> Sorry. Did I write "years" to get an STA? My bad.
>
> It should only take a 1 -2 months. Paul R. can help.
> HOWEVER, he will insist t
that
could change depending upon operating trends.
What rule do you think is stopping U.S. hams from using RFSM2400 other
than if it is not yet posted with a technical description?
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
> This is the part that is incredibly baffling to those of us outsid
miles
and number of hams?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Brad wrote:
>
>
> It is not surprising Bonnie, but it is INCREDIBLY boring. You guys have
> way too many rules, and the surprising thing is that so many hams seem
> to think that the problems can be solved by introducing yet more!
>
> Brad VK2QQ
>
>
il, K8IT was to lead
the HSMM-HF project. I don't really recognize this call. What was this
project all about and what developed from the work?
What about the HSMM WG Linux Infrastructure? Did anything ever happen
with that?
73,
KV9U
John Champa wrote:
> Rick,
>
> Paul as the
that a bit too risky and outside
of our comfort zone. And that assumes that the individual supports the
directions that your group wanted to go.
The democratic process works both ways and is intentionally made to be
difficult to steer the ship in a new direction.
KV9U
John Champa wrote:
> Ri
if you
don't like the interpretation then you can petition for change and you
can get an STA to experiment with it.
KV9U
expeditionradio wrote:
>> John VE5MU
>> So where and when can hams in the US play with RFSM2400?
>> I'll be back on 3587.5 after all the RTTY
modes in their countries. Or is this not correct?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Walt DuBose wrote:
> Rick,
>
> You are not in possession of all the facts.
>
> The HSMM was chartered to find out what it would take to do high speed data
> and
> other modes on frequencies above HF.
>
> T
in the U.S.
73,
Rick, KV9U
bruce mallon wrote:
> This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
> meters with 200 khz wide signals?
>
> Nice very nice .
>
>
> --- John Champa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Rod,
>>
>> I have NEVER h
One other related thought.
With the recent changes to Part 97, I believe that it is now legal to
send an analog or digital image transmission in the text data portion of
the bands with signals that are no wider than 500 Hz.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote:
> Yes, absolutely.
that comes across from comparing speeds vs. S/N is that
there are really are no fast modems that can go down below zero dB. In
fact, to get data rates of 1200 bps it is often around +10 dB.
A lot of this information came from a web site from Rapid M a company in
South Africa.
73,
Rick, KV9U
eem
to be illegal based on Part 97, since the Winlink 2000 system operates
only in the text data part of the bands. The Winlink 2000 owner has
promoted this as a feature of their system.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Les Keppie wrote:
> KT2Q wrote:
>
>> All:
>>
>> The 'legal
f the time).
Seems like a Pactor 3 type of modulation, plus some extra speed
enhancers such as compression, would do very well for the higher speeds.
Then just like P3, the tones would be reduced in number as conditions
deteriorated until you were down to only two tones.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Bill
le as
"image"? Thus, any areas that image can be transmitted are also legal
for facsimile (FAX).
73,
Rick, KV9U
Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote:
> I think that makes it fax, which isn't legal in the phone band.
>
> It's screwy, isn't it?
>
> Hellschreiber and Feld-H
, if not the symbols per second?
KV9U
expeditionradio wrote:
>> Rick, KV9U wrote:
>> Isn't the baud rate the same 2400 baud, all
>> the time for this modem,
>>
>
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> Perhaps you have been confusing "baud" and "symbols
.
Now these are the bps rates. Isn't the baud rate the same 2400 baud, all
the time for this modem, contrary to what Bonnie claims?
73,
Rick, KV9U
expeditionradio wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kv9u <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If the 110A works
If the 110A works this well at 2400 baud, what would happen with slower
speeds? From what I understand, it does require a good signal to get
through, perhaps comparable to the WinDRM software at maybe +10 S/N dB
or maybe a bit below that?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Per wrote:
> Well, MIL-STD-188-1
It still seems a bit non-intuitive that using a 2400 baud rate with two
tones can work well and yet 300 baud packet hardly works well at all.
There is something that I am missing here.
73,
Rick, KV9U
expeditionradio wrote:
>
> Yes. MIL STD 188-110 is in PCALE software (along with standa
The impression we have had is that the S/N ratio has to be quite good,
perhaps in the +10 db range? How fast does this compare with the through
put of the OFDM modes used with SSTV image data?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Les Keppie wrote:
> Seems to me to be quite a good system
>
> Regar
international group
such as ours, and is also factually untrue. The standard of living
continues to increase at a double digit rate in China although perhaps
not quite as fast as it has been increasing the last decade or two.
KV9U
Peter G. Viscarola wrote:
>>> I have no idea how somet
been
total fantasy to suggest that someday there would be such a product and
it would be sold for $5 (in 1950's prices).
73,
Rick, KV9U
jgorman01 wrote:
> My atomic clock changed right on time. I would have to look at the
> manual, but the clock itself may have the software for DST.
with P3 modems
on both ends. If they are P1 or P2, then they would stay at around 500 Hz.
73,
Rick, KV9U
jgorman01 wrote:
> I suspect an activity detector IS going to have a problem knowing if
> there is another close by signal while the auto station is
> tranmsitting. In fact,
complain about Pactor 3, would been quite unhappy about SCAMP today as
it was about the same bandwidth and was a very aggressive sounding mode.
I would expect many more HF users of the Winlink 2000 system today and
more use of the bands.
73,
Rick, KV9U
jgorman01 wrote:
> Ask yourself why scamp d
you again on the digital frequencies if and when I get my
Linux system running anything digital:(
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
> Hey I'm one of the first to complain about WINLINK knocking out a QSO,
> and it is usually during a DX contact that it happens
>
> What I ca
igh speed, and do it on the MS OS
(Microsoft Operating System) platform. And yet, that has to be what will
eventually evolve if we are able to set up truly robust and
decentralized systems wherever we want them and need them and not be
under the control of a central group.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Dave B
not clear about the
difference between the Winlink, NTS/D, and Winlink 2000 systems and how
they evolved.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA
>
> So the FSF says no. As Dave points out, I don't know that this h
eased code?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote:
> Now that NCI is no longer necessary, maybe we can get Bruce Perens
> interested in this topic and he can pursue the release of SCAMP source
> code through their obligations of GPL.
> Leigh/WA5ZNU
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 1:48 am,
d not matter.
However, I would definitely NOT include any increased bandwidth for
automatic operation.
It will be interesting if and when the FCC acts on the bandwidth
proposals. But maybe they will make things worse? Hopefully not.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
>
>
> Do
the bandplans would not agree with that wide a use of the
bands and a ham doing that could be cited for improper operation.
73,
Rick, KV9U
expeditionradio wrote:
> In USA the FCC set the new auto subband at 3580-3600kHz.
> No one should be surprised that hams are using this subband
>
their experiences.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker wrote:
> If the guy at sea was a ham why would care what type of a message
> he was sending?
>
> At 07:42 PM 3/8/2007, you wrote:
>
>
>> I'm with you on that. Why the ARRL supports what is essentially long
>>
io as well.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Rein Couperus wrote:
>> The SCAMP busy detector has been around for several years.
>>
>>
>
> Is this available for Linux? Source code? GPL?
>
> Rein EA/PA0R/P
>
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --
he underlying infrastructure of
Winlink 2000. And does not use such wide bandwidths.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Joe Ivey wrote:
> I have yet to understand why the FCC allowed automatic stations on the
> ham bands in the first place. I hate to see ham radio being used as an
> internet email servic
. Without the daily practice, of these operators, the net may
not perform as well when we really need it. Last year, I was able to
route a Health & Welfare message to Alaska, from a tornado victim in a
nearby community.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Kurt wrote:
>
> Walt and others this is the probl
ferent competing interests for
the same small area of spectrum. Most of us could not possibly remember
more than a few frequencies or areas for specific types of operation. I
have to refer frequently to the ARRL bandplans, as imperfect as they
are, to try and operate appropriately.
73,
digital modes would not be in
compliance with this bandplan.
As some hams have recently been finding out, the FCC can cite them for
poor operating practices if they are not following the bandplans. I
don't personally agree with that, but it is something to consider.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny
ich I have two
to cover different sides of the farm. Thankfully, my rig's noise blanker
is very effective against that kind of noise. I have never been very
impressed with DSP noise reduction, although it may help a little bit.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Roger J. Buffington wrote:
> A strong a
well
into at 250 Hz bandpass.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Dave wrote:
> Has anyone tried using either a 250 Hz or 500 Hz filter for PSK31
> reception? My Icom IC-746 (non-Pro) has no filters installed, and is
> wide as a barn door on USB for PSK31. I wondered if either of these
> filters would
/ke4mob/
73,
Rick, KV9U
kc7fys wrote:
>Howdy,
>I need some specific instructions on wiring up this cable. I have the
>5-pin DIN for the MFJ, but don't have the instructions for wiring up
>the FSK and 13-pin DIN.
>Thanks for tips.
>Jonathan KC7FYS
>
>
>
>
any Clover II users who can tell us
how the mode compares to the other current modes and particularly the
new FAE ARQ mode.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steve Hajducek wrote:
>Hi Rick,
>
>Plus it retains the bi-directional (duplex) support ( and most
>things) of DBM ARQ and thus both stations
,
Rick, KV9U
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>
>Hi Patrick and group,
>
>Thanks a lot for the brief explanation. I hope your new ARQ mode will
>progress well and I would really love to see some comparisons vs
>other digital modes, especially vs Pactor 2 and 3, although I realise
>that
, but that was under really good
conditions.
In comparison, P3 has a similar footprint but can operate with a raw
speed of over 2000 wpm and with compression can get way over 3000 wpm in
the best conditions.
So we have a long way to go, but we are making progress.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John
.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker wrote:
>Rick
>What was the shift used? In the St. Louis area there
>was a 146.10 .70 repeater that used 850Hz shift.
>
>Since I have not lived in the area for some 20 years now
>I have no guess if it's still on the air.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
ll on VHF and higher frequencies.
You don't see any RTTY "art" anymore come to think of it. It used to be
fairly popular on VHF, because you could operate for long periods of
time with no hits and it made for a nice picture. I especially liked the
Abraham Lincoln and the Einstein ones:)
through the approximately 30% overlap with P3.
Now I see W1OER calling CQ on 14109.5 (dial frequency 140108 + 1450Hz).
I will move up to 14.109.5 +1500 and see if any ALE activity.
KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
>EA2AFR and I tried for quite a while to get this running, but sigs were not
>
s trying that out, but in rural areas like I live, it is just not
that common.
73,
Rick, KV9U
va7s wrote:
>just curious anyone interested in trying vhf rtty
>
>
>Ian VA7SW
>
>
>
former Navy MARS member back in the early 1960's and later in the
80's with AF MARS, we were mostly sending traffic with voice with some
feeds (often garbled) from RTTY.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steve Hajducek wrote:
>
> Hi Patrick,
>
> Bad news as soon as MultiPSK 25-02 receives a
ynthesized VFO's, and apparently all that
most rigs do is insert the tones internally instead of you having to do
this with outside tones from a sound card or other interface device. The
advantage is that you do not have to adjust anything, assuming the
internal tones are set correctly.
you are basically switching the frequencies from inside the rig.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
>OK, my cable for my Microkeyer should arrive in a day or so My new
>rig provides for FSK RTTY as opposed to the AFSK my old rig has been
>providing for the past 18 years. I
digital hams and how they rate the old and new modes.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
>I received a Skype call from a ham asking me the very same question I
>was thinking last week...what has happened to Olivia? Last year I
>would say it was behind only PSK31, Pactor and
received audio frequency in the filters as well as meet operator
preference. The other operator has no idea that you are doing this as
long as you are zero beat on the frequency.
KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
> I appologize, since I didn't realise that it is equipment defficiencies
> w
You are of course right, Jose. That was a typo and should have read 14.111.
Thanks for the correction.
Rick, KV9U
Jose A. Amador wrote:
>KV9U wrote:
>
>
>>When John, VE5MU, claims to be transmitting on 14109.5, he is
>>actually centering his transmitting frequency on 14.
give them the frequency.
KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
>I know this argument has been beaten to death before,but here it goes again. I
>think all of us who are using digital modes understand
>the offset concept.
>
>If you specify a VFO frequency, this is a good starting point f
tive technologies to allow us to transmit higher speed, yet error
free data.
KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
>The math is all fine and dandy , but WHY pick a frequency close to the
>beacons? That's where all the logic fails!
>There is a large chunk of relatively little used frequencies on b
will be very close allowing for rig differences in accuracy.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
> dial frequency 14109.5 plus 0ffset. Since everyone's offset may be
> different, easier to understand VFO freq and look up from there
>
>at 2000gmt back making noise
>
>John
>
>
>
>
success of Pactor 3, it seems that having a
moderate number of tones (18 perhaps?) might be better than having large
numbers such as found with MT-63 (64 tones).
What would happen with a DEX44 or DEX88, with or without FEC?
73,
Rick, KV9U
DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
>Rick,
&
Assuming you are centered on 14109.5, there has been a Pactor 3 station
partically on that frequency. Tried calling you now since freq is clear
but no response. But not sure of QRG. I am dial frequency 14.108 _1500 Hz.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
>this morning could hear CO2JA, J
. It will be most interesting to
see what happens this summer with static crashes. It just seemed like
DEX was able to handle static crashes better than other non-ARQ modes.
73,
Rick, KV9U
DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
> Coding Coding
&g
nd what 99%
of radio amateurs would ever want to do on the HF bands, but if it could
act as an ARQ mode for keyboarding or messaging I can see where it could
be a stop gap measure until we get a better replacement for this feature.
73,
Rick, KV9U
expeditionradio wrote:
>HFLINK welcomes
downloaded the program and I think I understand how to connect to
another station. Anyone on tonight yet? 160 and up. Butternut vertical
ground mounted here. Also, on 80 meters, NVIS inverted vee dipole.
Any Technician hams planning to operate CW or digital or voice on Friday?
73,
Rick, KV9U
necessarily make it useful or even desirable.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Charlie Wilber wrote:
>"KV9U" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Clearly, the FCC no longer considers CW a necessary skill. No
>reasonable person can deny that."
>==
>
>No "re
a deaf person to communicate with a blind person
using these kinds of technology. Just one of the extra benefits of our
digital modes:)
73,
Rick, KV9U
James Wilson wrote:
>Glad you learned it. I have spent at least 80 hours trying to learn code
>using every method possible. I was g
t a lot of fun. But probably not a
lot of them.
Your last comment is what the folks who do anything new generally say to
the OT's.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Rodney Kraft wrote:
>Personally, should someone fire off a nuke, or a series of nukes, the EM Pules
>would wipe out MOST electronics
. That is all gone now.
It will be quite interesting to see how many do try it and become
proficient in CW. But maybe only half as many? 20% as many? 10% as many?
73,
Rick, KV9U
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I am wondering why CW, as a mode, becomes less valuable just because
>there is no &q
clear, then it is your frequency until you
relinquish it.
All hams should fully understand this and follow it.
73,
Rick, KV9U
larry allen wrote:
>If w1aw had to listen and move to find a clear spot then how would people
>find them.. Why can't the other users realise where and whe
.doc file and can do a quick search to find the
pertinent information.
3. I try to keep up my understanding of rules, both for my own interest
and so that I keep it straight when I teach ham classes or do any
mentoring. Maybe it even keeps the brain going?
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker wrote:
&g
; where the schedule of
normal operating times and frequencies is published at least 30 days in
advance of the actual transmissions; and where the control operator does
not accept any direct or indirect compensation for any other service as
a control operator.
73,
Rick, KV9U
larry allen wrote
days from today. The very best way to increase
your code speed, and certainly the most fun way, is to actually get on
the air and use it.
Of course, most will want to try SSB voice and maybe even some digital
on 10 meters.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Bill McLaughlin wrote:
>Hi Danny,
>
>I kno
1 - 100 of 578 matches
Mail list logo
