Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:lknain@nc.rr.com: 64 ]

Total 64 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [CQ-Contest] Hamradio in Viet Nam? (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 17:56:12 -0500
I operated as 3W2NWS in 2001 from HCM. Contact me direct if you like w6nws at arrl.net. _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-12/msg00099.html (8,115 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] The dupes? (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:51:39 -0500
You may have copied someone who was working someone else on a few hundred hertz away. I have had stations acknowledge my report when I was in fact working someone else nearby. The station I was wrkin
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-12/msg00323.html (11,159 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Wireless keyboards (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:03:58 -0500
A downside of a 2.4GHz device is you may have conflicts if have house phones operating there.The phones tend to be somewhat belligerent and muck up many of the wireless network routing schemes. I hav
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-01/msg00309.html (8,676 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] eQSL vs. LoTW 2009 Data Point: Award levels (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:10:17 -0500
I have been using both (eQSL and LoTW) since they started. Rate of return is similar for me with a slight edge to eQSL (overall LoTW about 13% and eQSL about 16% out of 100K+ QSOs). My sense (not ver
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00098.html (9,069 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Needed: Schematic for Top Ten Band Decoder for Yaesu (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:13:06 -0400
It is on their website: http://www.qth.com/topten/bd-yman.htm _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/lis
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-08/msg00335.html (8,147 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Rules Question (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:10:13 -0400
I was kind of surprised going through the rules as there used to be rule against such activity if I recall correctly. I haven't paid much attention to rule changes in that area though as I haven't wo
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-10/msg00230.html (8,471 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Self Spoting (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:06:44 -0400
The CQWW rules prohibit self-spotting (to include asking to be spotted) for single ops (under rules section III, subsection A). I didn't see any restriction specifically mentioned for muli-multi or m
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-10/msg00260.html (8,097 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Rules - follow up answe (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:19:30 -0400
The item below probably falls under CQWW rules section III item 5 under "For all categories:": "5. Only the entrant's callsign can be used to aid the entrant's score." ............. _________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-10/msg00261.html (9,596 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] 'WinCap Wizard' replacement (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 08:10:53 -0500
You might look at PropView which is part of the DXLab Suite.( www.dxlabsuite.com ) It is free. I don't know how it compares to WinCap other than it is similar in function. ___________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-11/msg00268.html (10,611 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] 160 Beacon Hunt Results (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 10:57:02 -0500
Comments about the DX window are interesting. If you believe the ARRL (a stretch for some) the DX window moved to 1830-1835 for CW several years ago (2001 I think). There was a big flap at the time b
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-01/msg00111.html (16,642 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] unIDs (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:51:56 -0500
The problem goes in cycles. It is getting worse at the moment. There will be some backlash as a result of discussion. The situation will improve some for awhile and then get worse again if it follows
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00438.html (10,374 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] The Calling Disease... (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:18:22 -0500
I have been lucky enough to be on the other side in a DX situation and the calling can be constant. As observed here it doesn't matter what I might send many stations just keep sending. For some stat
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00485.html (10,822 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] unIDs (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 21:17:59 -0500
As someone else observed the detection by the offender is much too late to be useful. The offender would probably conclude "you" messed up by not logging the QSO. There is nothing that would lead me,
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00528.html (10,248 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] shack table height - optimal for CW contesting? (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:47:07 -0400
29 to 31 inches is pretty much the standard for desktop height. That is often to high for comfortable typing. Keyboard trays are often a few inches lower. The lower height is usually to reduce fatigu
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-09/msg00203.html (11,503 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] which contests would require me to sign AA7XT/0 (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 12:18:28 -0500
The FCC required it prior to 1979. It was required by some contests up through the early 1980's and I seem to recall there was one that required it as late as the early 1990's. Which contests had the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-12/msg00155.html (10,259 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] Enough of this Nonsense! (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:42:24 -0500
How would expect the logging program to distinguish your case from the case where the previous QSO asks for a repeat of the exchange after you thought it was a done QSO? I see the latter far more tha
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-01/msg00110.html (10,968 bytes)

17. Re: [CQ-Contest] Lazy brain loses a mult (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 07:17:58 -0500
The quote marks are most likely enclosing the offending entry which is nothing according to you. Had you put in aa you would probably have seen I do not recognize 'aa' as a valid element of the excha
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-01/msg00271.html (8,545 bytes)

18. Re: [CQ-Contest] PSE QSY - Deer in headlights (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:25:20 -0500
Personally, I rarely QSY but do on occasion. 1. If I have worked "most" of the stations on the band and the band you want to me to QSY to is where I intend to go next I might well go look for your ot
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-02/msg00509.html (11,854 bytes)

19. Re: [CQ-Contest] The question unasked ... (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:48:54 -0400
Tough target. WPX CW often coincides with Memorial Day weekend here in the US. What about holidays in other countries? Moving the contest just means that someone else will no doubt get the contest on
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-03/msg00593.html (9,576 bytes)

20. Re: [CQ-Contest] How many hours do SOAB entrants actually operate? (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:19:26 -0400
Last year we were trying to level the playing field by changing the scoring for nearly all of the contests [because everyone lives in a super DX QTH except "me" and "I" live in a "black hole" (please
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-04/msg00023.html (13,836 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu