Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+NAQP\s+CW\s+Propagation\s+\"spotlighting\"\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+NAQP\s+CW\s+Propagation\s+\"spotlighting\"\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] NAQP CW Propagation "spotlighting" (score: 1): Author: Scott Robbins <w4pa@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:09:15 -0800 (PST); N2IC wrote (on 3830 NAQPCW posting): that we heard couldn't hear us. Very disappointing way to end the contest.<< Strange propagation on 15 and 20 meters this time as well. I asked N2IC "15M?" and wa; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00281.html (8,870 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP CW Propagation "spotlighting" (score: 1): Author: Steve London <n2ic@arrl.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:02:30 -0500; The skip length on 15 from SW NM was never that short. We had, what I nickname "Hudson River propagation", because it used to happen so often on 10 meters from Colorado. It means that not much was wo; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00290.html (9,868 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP CW Propagation "spotlighting" (score: 1): Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@verizon.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:34:22 -0500; 160 was very good from here as well as was 80. I worked NM on 160, but somehow missed it on 40 and couldn't get a pass back there. I think I heard XE as well, but didn't work it. I did work ZF2NT on; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00295.html (10,589 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP CW Propagation "spotlighting" (score: 1): Author: "Ken K7ZUM" <Ken.Knopp@verizon.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:18:03 -0800; Scott, NK7U,K7ZSD,N6TR, and the rest of the gang out here in the Pacific Northwest (that's very soggy Pacific Northwest !!) were really loud, because they have "bigger antenna's" than everybody else; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00298.html (10,225 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]