As I recall, there was a photograph of the ends of one of the parasitic wires. These were held taunt with a couple of cinder blocks tied on the ends. Turning the array meant the ends would swing cons
You get to take the full time off. There's no Qs prior to 2128, therefore you have more than 30 minutes of off time. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net Quote: "Not within a thousand ye
Here's the problem -- there's already 250 kHz of HF spectrum that is 100% contest-free. They are the WARC bands - 30, 17 and 12m. There are also 5 additional 2.8 kHz channels on 60m. The channelised
LoTW is absolutely great. What it needs right now is more participation, especially from DX operators. Obtaining LoTW credentials is a rather involved process for a DX station -- but the LoTW is wort
Yes, but the amateur equipment isn't type-accepted for use on the maritime frequencies. You saved money by purchasing an illegal radio. There are many ways to "save" money by ignoring rules and regul
What we really need is to amend the FCC rules so that any mode is allowed anywhere, just as it is in virtually every other part of the world. This would completely eliminate the Canadian advantage. B
Well, here's an idea. How about a three-band category. Submit scores for any three bands of your choosing. Pick the best bands according to propagation. That way, you're not locked into 10-20 if they
Amen! Not to mention all the non-DXpedition stations who are just operating from home. (62 mixed and still counting) Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net Quote: "Not within a thousand ye
Too bad that e-qsl isn't recognized for any awards.... Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilbur Wright, 1901 _______________
You can register and submit QSOs for confirmation with ZERO fees. But, you have to factor into this how much you spend in sending out QSL cards in order to get replies from DX stations you need -- pl
On Jan 15, 2004, at 5:21 PM, KI9A@aol.com wrote: Take look at page 98 of the 2/04 QST.... More non-contesters wanting to limit us to less than 100kc of 40!! Plus the other bands. This guy is looking
On Jan 17, 2004, at 11:48 AM, Joe Subich, K4IK wrote: Why NOT limit contests on 20M to below 14.297? Quite simply, there are plenty of "contest free zones." They are the "WARC" bands and the "opposit
On Jan 16, 2004, at 8:43 PM, Mark Beckwith wrote: KI9A steered us toward the February Op-Ed in QST proposing phone contest subbands. I read it and the author seems to be about as fair and balanced as
On Jan 19, 2004, at 2:21 PM, K4BEV@aol.com wrote: I'd like to hear from anyone using a K2 in contests, especially RTTY and CW. Your impressions of this radio - esp the receiver - under contest condit
On Feb 26, 2004, at 6:07 PM, Richard J. Norton wrote: In summary, I use: "CQ N6AA N6AA" without any "TEST" or "K." I totally agree with Dick here. I also want to add that when I'm trying to copy a st
On Mar 6, 2004, at 4:46 PM, Bob Schreibmaier wrote: I have used serial number 2552 and must agree with Bill. It has the right architecture to be an excellent receiver, but the filters are not good en
On Mar 4, 2004, at 7:07 AM, Bill Tippett wrote: A narrow definition of quality like ISO9000 which does not include feedback and corrective action in the design process is one which simply allows some
On Mar 6, 2004, at 10:47 PM, VR2BrettGraham wrote: I agree with you about the interest from having had the same direct communications. The community wouldn't have anything to do with another suggeste
On Apr 4, 2004, at 9:17 PM, Tom Rauch wrote: It is with the deepest regret imaginable that I must report the unexpected death of my dear friend and fellow amateur W4AN. It is hard to express the shoc
I was just looking at my log check report for the Sweepstakes Phone contest. This was one of my better low-power efforts. First, I'd like to say I received a 3.1% error rate, which is rather consiste