Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+\[PVRC\]\s+WPX\s+CW\s+Signal\s+Quality\s+Concerns\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+\[PVRC\]\s+WPX\s+CW\s+Signal\s+Quality\s+Concerns\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [CQ-Contest] [PVRC] WPX CW Signal Quality Concerns (score: 1): Author: donovanf@starpower.net; Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2020 15:52:18 -0400 (EDT); What a great idea Doug! What a concept: contesters help to solve our own problems! Contest logging software developers could enable use of a "59K" signal report. I don't think contest sponsors need t; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-06/msg00128.html (12,677 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] [PVRC] WPX CW Signal Quality Concerns (score: 1): Author: Barry W2UP <w2up.co@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2020 15:35:24 -0600; 59K would be confusing in ARRL DX. It would also be confusing among the cut numbers crowd. What would also be helpful is ARRL doing honest reviews of equipment and not sugar coating them all to not a; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-06/msg00134.html (15,745 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] [PVRC] WPX CW Signal Quality Concerns (score: 1): Author: donovanf@starpower.net; Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2020 17:38:41 -0400 (EDT); Hi Barry, It would be confusing only to those operators with key clicks, That's okay with me, they've earned it. ARRL product reviews are much improved in recent years. 73 Frank W3LPL -- Original Mes; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-06/msg00135.html (14,002 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]