Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Time\s+to\s+QSY\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Time\s+to\s+QSY\?\s*$/: 26 ]

Total 26 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY? (score: 1): Author: K1AR via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>; Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:08:08 -0400; OK everyone -- unless someone has something new and profound to offer, I suggest we move on to a new thread. How about a discussion on leveling the playing field in contesting? Or, perhaps the impact; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00437.html (7,090 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY? (score: 1): Author: Joe Fischer <aa8ta@fischerhome.org>; Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 09:49:10 -0400; Yea, I think that I'm going to drop out of this group. Sorry, hundreds of replies to one topic flooding my mailbox is tough to deal with. Plus, I'm such a small fish in this big pond that most of the; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00439.html (8,079 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY? (score: 1): Author: Joe <nss@mwt.net>; Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 08:22:53 -0500; How about how to get new blood into Contesting? OR How to combat the anti Contesting crowd? Just getting these anti folk to try it it's amazing the results. 90% of these guys that crab about them dam; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00440.html (8,899 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY? (score: 1): Author: Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:15:59 -0400; Make it worth their while. The first time I got a certificate in the mail as a surprise it had me hooked on contesting. The first time over 1M points I was pretty happy. The first time I won a plaque; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00442.html (9,808 bytes)
5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY? (score: 1): Author: k2ttt <k2ttt@optonline.net>; Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:57:09 -0400; We just added a "non-contestor" to our team, he thought he was only a dxer but a few hours in front of a contest station proved him wrong..Never pressured him for runs or s& p but the fun of both hoo; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00443.html (10,946 bytes)
6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY? (score: 1): Author: Steve Lott <lottsphoto@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 09:44:19 -0500; What I don't understand is why none of these Anti contest types are ever on the WARC bands Of course none and never are over statements but you get the point Is there a rule that says no nets on the; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00444.html (12,061 bytes)
7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY? (score: 1): Author: Neal Campbell <nealk3nc@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:41:08 -0400; The problem of continual negative debates and the implication that everyone in contesting is always cheating will run new guys off this list as well as out of our hobby. We present an ugly face on a; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00445.html (11,689 bytes)
8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY? (score: 1): Author: Ktfrog007--- via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>; Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 11:25:59 -0400; Don't leave, Joe. We need folks here who have some common sense. And a sense of proportion, too. I also get fed up and disgusted, but overall the group keeps me informed (over-informed, actually) of; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00448.html (9,145 bytes)
9. Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY? (score: 1): Author: Joe <nss@mwt.net>; Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:31:46 -0500; Only one WARC band is reliable lately, and hats 30 meters, and well CW & Digital modes,, well...... Ya know.. Joe WB9SBD Sig The Original Rolling Ball Clock Idle Tyme Idle-Tyme.com http://www.idle-ty; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00449.html (13,421 bytes)
10. Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY? (score: 1): Author: Joe <nss@mwt.net>; Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:32:52 -0500; EXACTLY! Like I said once they try it 90% of the time they are converts! Joe WB9SBD Sig The Original Rolling Ball Clock Idle Tyme Idle-Tyme.com http://www.idle-tyme.com On 3/17/2017 9:57 AM, k2ttt wr; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00450.html (11,972 bytes)
11. Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY? (score: 1): Author: Richard Riley <Richard.Riley@tango.hr>; Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:11:52 +0000; Before you do QSY :)..it's Friday afternoon and I've found 5 minutes to spam you with my 2 cents: Why not allow interleaved CQs on the same band, but impose stricter rules for signal cleanliness? Dir; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00452.html (10,139 bytes)
12. Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY? (score: 1): Author: "Stephen Bloom" <sbloom@acsalaska.net>; Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:43:28 -0800; I'll throw this out there ... 80M and 160M antennas! Most of us probably know the theory, but I want to know what has actually worked and hasn't ..and ..why Competitively, at this point in the cycle,; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00455.html (9,752 bytes)
13. Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY? (score: 1): Author: Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:10:32 -0400; I use a single vertical, DX Engineering 66ft vertical. I am getting 3 more for a 4 square. It gets out fairly well. Probably won't burn up anyone's S meter but I get good reports. For 160 (for now) I; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00456.html (11,745 bytes)
14. Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY? (score: 1): Author: k2ttt <k2ttt@optonline.net>; Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:42:41 -0400; Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone I use a single vertical, DX Engineering 66ft vertical. I am getting 3 more for a 4 square. It gets out fairly well. Probably won't burn up anyone's S meter but; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00458.html (12,199 bytes)
15. Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY? (score: 1): Author: Wes Jennings <wjennings2011@hotmail.com>; Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:34:52 +0000; Steve as you know I am setting up here also. 4 sq on 40m - 2multi band verts for 80 phased. And inverted l for 160. Now on a small city lot my old elmer had KLM tribander, 2ele 40m beam, shunt fed th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00459.html (11,195 bytes)
16. Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY? (score: 1): Author: Chuck Dietz <w5prchuck@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 22:57:22 +0000; I use a 1/4 wave sloper on 160 with the top at about 130 feet on a 155 foot tower. I have a receiving array, but I have never heard any 160m station I could not contact. East coast stations tell me I; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00461.html (13,502 bytes)
17. Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY? (score: 1): Author: "Yuri" <ve3dz@rigexpert.net>; Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 00:22:38 -0400; How about discussing and/or debating WRTC selection criteria and process? It's been a long time... Yuri OK everyone -- unless someone has something new and profound to offer, I suggest we move on to; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00463.html (9,484 bytes)
18. Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY? (score: 1): Author: Steve Bookout <steve@nr4m.com>; Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 22:37:48 -0400; Hello all, Steve, NR4M, here. I guess I fit the profile of a 'big gun', with 70 acres or cleared pasture land and several towers. Because of my neighbors 200+ goats, this place is known as 'The Goat; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00465.html (13,474 bytes)
19. Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY? (score: 1): Author: Steve Lott <lottsphoto@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 13:19:29 -0500; Steve NR5M Thank you for the detailed post about that great antenna farm Love to know more about how you planned the layout, layout is easy when you don't have the space But I now have 57 acres and f; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00469.html (15,871 bytes)
20. Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY? (score: 1): Author: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 12:09:15 -0600; Hah ! Sit in my shoes, on a dry, rocky mountaintop in SW New Mexico, with poor dielectric and conductivity characteristics. Essentially, no soil - just rocks. I have tried a number of single-element; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00472.html (14,317 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]