Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+WW\s+SSB\s+$40M$\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+WW\s+SSB\s+$40M$\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [CQ-Contest] WW SSB (40M) (score: 1): Author: John Warren <nt5c@texas.net>; Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 07:34:16 -0500; When all this happens, we need AT LEAST 7125-7150 permitted by FCC and supported by IARU/ARRL as the new 'Phone DX Window, for worldwide transceive contacts. (Just like 3790-3800 in each Jan QST "Gui; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00024.html (8,409 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] WW SSB (40M) (score: 1): Author: "Ted Bryant" <w4nz@comcast.net>; Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 09:11:16 -0500; All the recent discussion about the 40m mess reminded me of a previous question. Can someone -in the U.S.- explain why we still need US/"foreign" phone subbands? It's pretty obvious why someone outsi; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00028.html (9,527 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] WW SSB (40M) (score: 1): Author: Alan Zack <k7acz@cox.net>; Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:59:49 -0800; I remember hearing a ZS4 station working everyone except the U.S. on 21.198 or so. Later he did move above 21.200. Maybe he wanted to practice working a pile up before the sharks could attack. What g; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00049.html (8,639 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] WW SSB (40M) (score: 1): Author: "LA5HE Ragnar Otterstad" <la5he@otterstad.dk>; Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 23:14:29 +0100; It has happened in several Region1 countries already. Some of the bad guys listening in the 40m CW band got me in the log ONLY because they also listened on their own frequency ! 73 Rag LA5HE ______; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00050.html (8,425 bytes)
5. Re: [CQ-Contest] WW SSB (40M) (score: 1): Author: "Jeff Maass" <jmaass@columbus.rr.com>; Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 21:01:15 -0500; DX station need to get out of the US bands to be able to focus on the more multiplier-dense Europe without the additional "noise" of the loud USA stations. USA for rate; everywhere else for multipli; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00059.html (9,889 bytes)
6. Re: [CQ-Contest] WW SSB (40M) (score: 1): Author: Tom Frenaye <frenaye@direcway.com>; Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 21:25:20 -0500; John - The ARRL filed a request with the FCC in March 2002 to move the bottom of the US phone band on 40m to 7125. The FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ET 04-140) in April 2004 (more tha; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00062.html (9,354 bytes)
7. Re: [CQ-Contest] WW SSB (40M) (score: 1): Author: Zack Widup <w9sz@prairienet.org>; Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 07:53:55 -0600 (CST); Except in WPX when the USA is good for at least 900 different prefix multipliers. 73, Zack W9SZ _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http:; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00071.html (8,158 bytes)
8. Re: [CQ-Contest] WW SSB (40M) (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 09:04:07 -0500; As I read the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition, voice operation would be legal down to 7100 kHz, although the bandplan would probably encourage it to be higher to make some room for high-speed d; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00547.html (9,272 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]