Mail Archive Search: <+from:mike@sm3wmv.com>

Results:

References: [ +from:mike@sm3wmv.com: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1): Author: Mikael Larsmark <mike@sm3wmv.com>; Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:26:28 +0100; Hello I think these new rules really, really destroy the M/S and M/2 category in WPX. Now you remove the fun of having a bunch of ops running the contest together. These new rules remove the point of; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00339.html (8,343 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules? (score: 1): Author: Mikael Larsmark <mike@sm3wmv.com>; Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 00:09:34 +0100; I gotta say this discussion feels stupid. If anything V47NT should get ONE point for each US QSO just like us EU guys get 1 point for Europe. I have never understood why these 2 point qsos actually e; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-12/msg00157.html (8,225 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] EF8M CQ WW CW (score: 1): Author: Mikael Larsmark <mike@sm3wmv.com>; Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:09:35 +0100; No he did not improve last years DQ score. Last years score was claimed 13,176,250 pts and this year 11,888,100 pts with improved hardware (?). He had 131 + 409 mults this year and 139 + 493 last yea; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-12/msg00367.html (7,775 bytes)
4. [CQ-Contest] I loved the WPX - missing 10 min MS rule (score: 1): Author: Mikael Larsmark <mike@sm3wmv.com>; Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 08:36:09 +0200; I also fully agree with Braco and others on this one. The M/S category has become a lot less fun now for a serious competitor. And since a station just using 1 radio Multi-op can't be competitive any; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-04/msg00161.html (9,069 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]