Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Analysis\s+on\s+ASSISTED\s+advantage\s+vs\s+UNASSISTED\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Analysis on ASSISTED advantage vs UNASSISTED (score: 1)
Author: "Tonno Vahk" <tonno.vahk@mail.ee>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 20:07:53 +0300
It is often said that using packet does not help much and Assisted results are usually lower than unassisted. Well, just to get some numbers I did a little analysis. I had 2800 QSOs and 950 mults in
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00170.html (9,571 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Analysis on ASSISTED advantage vs UNASSISTED (score: 1)
Author: K3BU@aol.com
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:42:32 EDT
work. Looking at them I could clearly say that I could have worked at 100 of them with ease had I known their frequency and were to turn the antenna. With SO2R you don't just find all of them even if
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00171.html (8,590 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Analysis on ASSISTED advantage vs UNASSISTED (score: 1)
Author: "Barry " <w2up@mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:52:01 -0000
In my mind, there is no question packet CAN help scores. I emphasize CAN because one must LEARN to use packet effectively. Packet is an operating tool, in some respects just like a second radio. Two
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00176.html (13,174 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Analysis on ASSISTED advantage vs UNASSISTED (score: 1)
Author: "Tonno Vahk" <tonno.vahk@mail.ee>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 09:23:17 +0300
Well, I guess you believe as well as I do that those scores are really apples and oranges as Barry pointed out. If we put those top class SO guys with their setups into assisted classes the scores wo
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00184.html (11,084 bytes)

5. RE: [CQ-Contest] Analysis on ASSISTED advantage vs UNASSISTED (score: 1)
Author: "Hanlon, Steve" <SHanlon@dnr.state.md.us>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 07:55:16 -0400
as a soon to be single tribander and wires contester at the home QTH, i look at using packet as a tool to check propagation paths. i have set my packet filters to only display spots from Maryland, V
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00189.html (10,165 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Analysis on ASSISTED advantage vs UNASSISTED (score: 1)
Author: "W5PR" <W5PR@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 07:03:01 -0500
I can't imagine that assisted in WPX would do anything but reduce your score. You should be running stations so fast that the diversion would cost you time. The real strategy (even in a single band e
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00199.html (11,070 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Analysis on ASSISTED advantage vs UNASSISTED (score: 1)
Author: Gary Sutcliffe <w9xt@qth.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 03:47:11 -0500
I had 2800 QSOs and 950 mults in WPX SSB SOAB unassisted. I was wondering how many more mults I would have worked with packet. David was kind to let me have his nice database of all the nearly 30 000
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00200.html (11,226 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Analysis on ASSISTED advantage vs UNASSISTED (score: 1)
Author: "Tonno Vahk" <tonno.vahk@mail.ee>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:11:56 +0300
It might seem to you so but actually the rate is slow in WPX, rarely over 110-120 per hour. That allows you to use 2nd radio very efficiently almost not losing anything on the 1st radio. I estimate t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00204.html (12,347 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] Analysis on ASSISTED advantage vs UNASSISTED (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 09:16:30 -0400
At 08:11 AM 4/7/04, Tonno Vahk wrote: It might seem to you so but actually the rate is slow in WPX, rarely over 110-120 per hour. That allows you to use 2nd radio very efficiently almost not losing a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00212.html (9,741 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu