- 21. Re: [CQ-Contest] SS CW question (score: 1)
- Author: <al_lorona@agilent.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:20:03 -0700
- Do the guys who object to the arbitrary selection of a check year in the SS exchange also object to the universal practice of arbitrarily sending '599' instead of a *real* signal report? Al W6LX ____
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-11/msg00176.html (9,675 bytes)
- 22. Re: [CQ-Contest] TS590S from contesting point of view (score: 1)
- Author: <al_lorona@agilent.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:27:48 -0700
- Thank you for posting this, Wally. Have fun with your new radio! Just to clear up some confusion, if there were stations at 7.033 and 7.037 (4 kHz apart) they would have generated third-order product
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-11/msg00292.html (8,994 bytes)
- 23. [CQ-Contest] Wasting Time (score: 1)
- Author: <al_lorona@agilent.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:56:53 -0700
- As a little pistol I must admit that a lot of what I read here can be intimidating. For instance, for years I have read the opinion that goes like this: such-and-such behavior wastes valuable time in
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-12/msg00083.html (8,765 bytes)
- 24. Re: [CQ-Contest] Wasting Time (score: 1)
- Author: <al_lorona@agilent.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 17:21:23 -0700
- Thanks for all of your great comments. I'll respond, then I'll let y'all have the last word. I don't remember who it was that gave a very detailed mathematical analysis of what happens to your rate w
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-12/msg00116.html (9,030 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu