Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+7040\s+as\s+lower\s+limit\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] 7040 as lower limit (score: 1)
Author: kr2q@optimum.net
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:12:38 +0000 (GMT)
Sounds reasonable to me. So which EU countries have definitively documented that the lower limit on 40m is 7040? de Doug _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Con
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-06/msg00057.html (6,304 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] 7040 as lower limit (score: 1)
Author: "Dr. Lothar Wilke" <dl3td@t-online.de>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 08:01:54 +0200
Hi Doug, this is the actuell IARU Region 1 bandplan: 7000 - 7025 200 CW CW contest preferred 7025 - 7040 200 CW 7030 kHz - CW, QRP Centre of Activity 7040 - 7047 500 Narrow band modes Digimodes 7047
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-06/msg00061.html (9,138 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] 7040 as lower limit (score: 1)
Author: Andrew <ac6wi@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 07:43:39 -0400
<snip of bandplan> Lothar, The IARU Region 1 bandplan, whilst a good idea, is not legally binding in the licence regulations of most (all?) countries within Region 1. The WPX rule III you quote only
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-06/msg00063.html (8,663 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] 7040 as lower limit (score: 1)
Author: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 06:47:35 -0500
Hi all, Seems to me that quoting the IARU bandplan doesn't answer Doug's question, which was about which countries specify 7040 as a lower limit in law. The WPX rule says "strongly encouraged", but d
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-06/msg00065.html (10,558 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] 7040 as lower limit (score: 1)
Author: "Richard F DiDonna NN3W" <nn3w@cox.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:21:12 -0400
Yes, when I see the words "plan", "preferred", "center of activity," and "priority," I seriously have to question how this is a bright line rule. This sounds more like a suggested blue print. In any
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-06/msg00066.html (13,422 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] 7040 as lower limit (score: 1)
Author: Tom Haavisto <kamham69@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:52:03 -0400
As I recall, a serious issue with bandplans was raised either here or elsewhere. Bandplans are designed for "normal" loading conditions. That way, folks interested in one particular style of operatin
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-06/msg00069.html (9,520 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] 7040 as lower limit (score: 1)
Author: DL8MBS <prickler.schneider@t-online.de>
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 18:22:50 +0200
Rule XXII a) Every spirit of a gentlemen's agreement is a bad ghost which has to be chased by at least five lawyers forcing him to emigrate from the community. (Of course tongue in cheek hoping to es
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-06/msg00071.html (8,429 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] 7040 as lower limit (score: 1)
Author: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:29:24 +0000
Good on GI0NWG, at least there is _one_ amateur in IARU R1 who understands that the IARU R1 band plan is nothing more than a band plan. At the IARU R3 Bangalore conference where a paper calling on la
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-06/msg00079.html (8,524 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu