Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:aa4lr@arrl.net: 324 ]

Total 324 documents matching your query.

41. Re: [CQ-Contest] A little LoTW gotcha (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 18:45:01 -0500
On Feb 8, 2005, at 10:20 PM, Bill Turner wrote: Did any of you know that your LoTW certificates have to be renewed every year? Actually, no they do NOT. They only need to be renewed if you plan to ac
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-02/msg00104.html (10,314 bytes)

42. Re: [CQ-Contest] Another LoTW gotcha (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 18:47:48 -0500
On Feb 9, 2005, at 10:48 AM, Rajiv Dewan, N2RD wrote: I did not realize that backing up the tq* files is not enough if you change computers. You have also to create a p12 file and back that up. Here
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-02/msg00105.html (9,665 bytes)

43. Re: [CQ-Contest] How frequent to ID? Every QSO? No way! (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 18:03:02 -0500
On Jan 18, 2005, at 12:28 AM, Doug Smith W9WI wrote: If you don't ID frequently, the proportion of dupes among your QSOs will increase. Will it increase by more than the additional number of QSOs you
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-02/msg00106.html (9,074 bytes)

44. Re: [CQ-Contest] How frequent to ID? Every QSO? No way! (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 18:28:01 -0500
On Jan 18, 2005, at 5:18 PM, VR2BrettGraham wrote: Quoting N6AA from 1998: At around the 3k Q/weekend level, there are moments where being economical with my call will help, but the vast majority of
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-02/msg00107.html (9,312 bytes)

45. Re: [CQ-Contest] A little LoTW gotcha (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 20:27:46 -0500
On Feb 9, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Bill Turner wrote: No big deal? Is that so? I suggest you talk to the several people who have emailed me following an attempt to replace an expired cert and are thoroughly
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-02/msg00109.html (9,883 bytes)

46. Re: [CQ-Contest] Let's Do Something About CW Sprint (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:34:16 -0500
On Feb 13, 2005, at 10:03 PM, Richard DiDonna NN3W wrote: I was slightly annoyed at how far down in the band the RTTY test was on 40, and know that there were a number of contesters who were involved
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-02/msg00176.html (8,941 bytes)

47. Re: [CQ-Contest] Sloper Antenna (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:29:25 -0500
On Feb 14, 2005, at 8:37 AM, dan r goddard wrote: Those of you that work with sloper antennas, I have some questions. I have an unbalanced wire with a center connector running 450 ohm latter line. Th
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-02/msg00180.html (8,180 bytes)

48. Re: [CQ-Contest] More Sprints! ? (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:35:09 -0500
On Feb 15, 2005, at 11:44 AM, K5NZ@aol.com wrote: So why not have 4 per year? Currently, there are six sprints per year - two CW, two Phone, two RTTY. I don't think we should lower this to just 4 per
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-02/msg00202.html (7,608 bytes)

49. Re: [CQ-Contest] ham radio is dead? - Or - Operating Night (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:03:55 -0500
I've pulled this trick a couple of times myself. Sometimes I wonder if we haven't outsmarted ourselves. Seems like 20 years ago or so, people used to call CQ on "dead" bands all the time and make con
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-02/msg00230.html (8,216 bytes)

50. Re: [CQ-Contest] Domestic Spots (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:15:55 -0500
Agreed. When I'm at a mult station at NQ4I, and I'm tuning around, I'll spot just about everything I find (unless it's been spotted recently). And this, I think, is how it should be. The spotting net
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-02/msg00247.html (8,936 bytes)

51. Re: [CQ-Contest] Best HF rig under $900 (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:24:21 -0500
That depends on what your definition of "best" is... You don't need to go used to stay under $900. The Elecraft K2 has one of the best receivers made, and is available NEW for $600. Of course, that's
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-02/msg00263.html (10,260 bytes)

52. Re: [CQ-Contest] Domestic Spots (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:42:06 -0500
Yes, and at the very beginning, packet-cluster networks were tenuously connected by half-duplex 1200 bps and 2400 bps links. Throughput for spots was very low. Often the cluster back-bone was on a sh
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-02/msg00266.html (11,565 bytes)

53. Re: [3830] ARRLDX CW N3IQ(ND3F) SOAB LP (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:37:25 -0500
Despite the self-spotting through DXsummit, he may not have worked anyone by calling CQ.... Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-02/msg00288.html (8,351 bytes)

54. Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet Spot Etiquette (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:37:08 -0500
yeah, like this one: W4ZV 1829.3 9K2MU Murtada ans CQ 0235 04 Feb 2005 (oops!) <grin> Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilb
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-02/msg00304.html (7,554 bytes)

55. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW Sprint Results (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 08:00:11 -0500
To be fair, wouldn't you have to add two Phone and two RTTY sprints as well. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilbur Wright
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00037.html (7,913 bytes)

56. Re: [CQ-Contest] IC-746PRO -- evil incarnate or not? (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 23:08:01 -0500
K2/100? Seriously, though, the TS850 is a great radio. I'd pick it over an IC-746 any day. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" --
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00050.html (8,410 bytes)

57. Re: [CQ-Contest] $1000 receiver performance (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 20:04:10 -0500
As I read it, the TS-850 has better Blocking dynamic range (130-140 dB), which is noise-limited on the Omni-VI (123 dB). The TS-850 also has better IMDDR (99-100 dB) than the Omni-VI (97-98 dB). Thes
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00072.html (9,076 bytes)

58. Re: [CQ-Contest] arrl dx ssb cluster spot analysis (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:53:40 -0500
I have to wonder out loud -- has anyone had their log DQed due to such egregious packet cheating, or are the contest judges more worried that someone with a grudge would get on an "help" their enemy
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00125.html (8,560 bytes)

59. [CQ-Contest] Does size matter? (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:36:39 -0500
All these accounts of monstrous antenna arrays are very impressive. My question is - are they truly necessary? What is the advantage they convey? Does the advantage justify the cost over some smaller
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00128.html (9,202 bytes)

60. Re: [CQ-Contest] Operating time calculation (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:23:25 -0500
Think of the time-on minute being at 0 seconds, and the time-off minute being at 59.9 seconds, and it makes more sense. op time = (time off):59.9 - (time on):00 Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00271.html (8,185 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu