Not true at all ... go to a professional (or Olympic class) track and field meet. You will find that most pole vaulters have between 10 and 15 poles of different lengths and stiffness. They may use
Just like SO2R ... while in the act of making a QSO the operator is only using a SINGLE TRANSMITTER! Like a Pole Vaulter may use different poles for different conditions the SO2R operator may use a
David, IF you take that view, you still want a choke on the phasing network end of the line to the verticals. You do not want radial current on the OUTSIDE of the coax (common mode current) upsetting
At the very least currents on one feedline can couple to the other antennas (other ground systems) across the metal box. With elevated radials, the radials become part of the radiating system and cur
Elevated radial systems do not have nearly the "sinking capability" as an infinite, perfectly conducting ground plane. In a perfect world, if the vertical was fed by coax from underneath an infinite
Don, I don't believe the ARRL is correct in saying you must identify as VE3XD/W4. As I read Part 97.119(g) you may use any legal identification that indicates your location (e.g., /W4, /AA4, /NZ4, et
The "inconsistency" is due to the specific language in the original US/Canada treaty establishing reciprocity. W4TV/VE3 was the common form at the time the treaty was negotiated. The other form, G/W
Well, I would argue that the link on the web represents a staff interpretation and not "the law" as written in 97.119(g) since neither 97.119(g) nor any other section of Part 97 provides a specific
Well, to further the debate (I am not a lawyer), when a regulatory agency makes "law," those rules are included in the applicable part of the "Code of Federal Regulations." If the particular rule is
Other than assigning a call to each signal in a spectrum, is Skimmer really any different that an operator with his Pro III, 7800, Orion or Flex-5000 displaying every signal in the band (or +/- 50 K
Rick, If you believe Skimmer is assistance in the same category as packet/spotting and feel it must be banned, it would be far better/easier/less "big brother" is for contest logging software to 1) i
That's exactly why all of my eQSL cards explicitly state "not valid for any award." It takes a little common sense rather that trying to "get away with something" like CQ is doing. chel-campos-duffy
CQ Magazine becomes an associated party the instant they receive the logs and decide to release them. It is time for the CQ Awards Committee and their various contest committees to back away from th
I have done just that ... in addition to KOHB's action to withhold logs in CQ sponsored contests, I have notified CQ of my intention to withhold support for the magazine in other ways until this pol
Steve, You are dead WRONG! Read the DXCC Rules, Section III, 5. We have been back and forth about this and the CQWWW Committee is dead wrong to make the logs public even though they have done so with
Put differently, one or both parties to a large number of QSOs in CQWW is a participant in the DXCC program. For an "affiliated third party" who is not a participant in DXCC to cause those participa
The ARRL/DXCC rules do not say that. The rule in its entirety is: The only thing the CQWW Committee would need to do is remove the name/address/etc. data from the head of the Cabrillo log and rename
Not at all ... the title of the section is "Accreditation Criteria" not "Accreditation of DXpeditions." Any rule relating to the integrity of logs rightly applies to all participants. There are plen
If I recall correctly the sent portion of the exchange will include the sender's zone. That should be sufficient for propagation research. Even if the zone in not included, there are other solutions
Accreditation also applies to DX stations (permanent residents) in certain countries where licensing is controlled. There is nothing in Section III that implies that it is only applicable to DXpedit