Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:johngeig@yahoo.com: 113 ]

Total 113 documents matching your query.

101. Re: [CQ-Contest] Annoying trend (score: 1)
Author: John Geiger <johngeig@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 07:25:39 -0800 (PST)
From now on, the check Then you are in violation of the rules and should be moved to the checklog or disqualified category. The rules specifically state: 4. Exchange: The required exchange consists o
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00275.html (9,017 bytes)

102. Re: [CQ-Contest] Annoying trend (score: 1)
Author: John Geiger <johngeig@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:55:55 -0800 (PST)
But remember that the 59 (or the RST system in general) isn't stated as being relative to anything. Compared to the radio signals coming from Pioneer 10 (which is still sending) all terrestrial signa
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00283.html (10,639 bytes)

103. Re: [CQ-Contest] Annoying trend (score: 1)
Author: John Geiger <johngeig@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:25:06 -0800 (PST)
Then why not state in the rules: Check (the last two digits made up at random) It seems pretty straightforward what the check is. I cannot see why some people are so resistant to sending the correct
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00285.html (9,949 bytes)

104. Re: [CQ-Contest] Annoying trend (score: 1)
Author: John Geiger <johngeig@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:36:29 -0800 (PST)
As I stated before, the RST is purely subjective. R of 5 means perfectly reabable, whatever that means. And S9 means "extremely strong signals", but compared to what? There is no standard for strong
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00287.html (10,474 bytes)

105. Re: [CQ-Contest] Annoying trend (score: 1)
Author: John Geiger <johngeig@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 07:39:01 -0800 (PST)
So instead of sending a consectutive serial number, which can take more time in sending, would it be ok for me to give everyone 100 as a serial number, cut to ATT? As long as I log that as the sent n
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00294.html (10,033 bytes)

106. Re: [CQ-Contest] the trouble it would be to use a different nameeach time (score: 1)
Author: John Geiger <johngeig@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:57:36 -0800 (PST)
So since there is nothing to send for everyone's first QSO, the contest never really got going. 73s john W5TD ____________________________________________________________________________________ TV d
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00305.html (8,794 bytes)

107. Re: [CQ-Contest] contesting 10 years from now (score: 1)
Author: John Geiger <johngeig@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 05:53:17 -0800 (PST)
Wasn't a program like this developed and marketed about 20 years ago by AEA? Can't remember the name of it right now, but it simulated the CQWW CW contest and ran on Commodore computers. 73s john W5T
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-02/msg00009.html (9,429 bytes)

108. Re: [CQ-Contest] contesting 10 years from now (score: 1)
Author: John Geiger <johngeig@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 12:05:04 -0800 (PST)
1. There will be more SO2R in one box radios along the lines of the Yaesu FTDX9000, and the cost for them will come down into the $3000 or $4000 range. Maybe in the Icom 756PROIV or 756PROV. 2. There
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-02/msg00028.html (12,216 bytes)

109. Re: [CQ-Contest] contesting 10 years from now (score: 1)
Author: John Geiger <johngeig@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 12:20:01 -0800 (PST)
Not sure why, when participation in most contests is at an all time high, and getting a general or extra license has never been easier. 73s John W5TD _________________________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-02/msg00029.html (9,263 bytes)

110. Re: [CQ-Contest] contesting 10 years from now (score: 1)
Author: John Geiger <johngeig@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 12:23:30 -0800 (PST)
But what is the fun of going on a DXpedition if you can't get shot at or nearly freeze to death? 73s John W5TD http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest ________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-02/msg00030.html (10,286 bytes)

111. Re: [CQ-Contest] contesting 10 years from now (score: 1)
Author: John Geiger <johngeig@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 13:23:46 -0800 (PST)
It would also be great if you could select the solar flux, K index,etc to see how those things affect propagation at different locations. Dr. DX did offer a DXCC certificate,among other things. 73s J
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-02/msg00037.html (10,844 bytes)

112. [TenTec] Omni V vs. TS850 (score: 1)
Author: John Geiger <johngeig@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:30:07 -0800 (PST)
I may be in the market soon for an older (1990s) contest quality rig, and wonder how the Kenwood TS850 compares to the Ten Tec Omni V overall. Anyone have a chance to compare these 2? The QST review
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-02/msg00321.html (7,418 bytes)

113. Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet is the root of all evil but... (score: 1)
Author: John Geiger <johngeig@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 08:50:25 -0800 (PST)
A Multi station could have "listening posts" And since the Omni VII does 6 meters, you could be your own captive rover for VHF contests! 73s John W5TD ________________________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00155.html (7,867 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu