Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+logic\s+here\?\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] logic here? (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Dougherty" <nq4i@contesting.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 20:38:38 -0500
Hi all...just listening around on 75 m ssb during the ARRL SSB test and observed the following....US station N2XYZ cqing on a 3820 +- freq and qsx on 3670+- freq...why do this? Why not cq on 3670 and
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00024.html (6,528 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] logic here? (score: 1)
Author: Barry <w2up@mindspring.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 02:53:20 +0000
I have my 80m antennas cut for 3800 and with a flip of a switch, 3525. SWR is kinda high in the 3600-3700 range... 73, Barry W2UP -- Barry Kutner, W2UP Newtown, PA ___________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00025.html (8,017 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] logic here? (score: 1)
Author: "Jeff Maass" <jmaass@k8nd.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 22:25:01 -0500
N2XYZ is a General Class licensee, with privileges only down to 3800. 73, Jeff K8ND _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.con
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00026.html (7,380 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] logic here? (score: 1)
Author: "Yuri VE3DZ" <ve3dz@rigexpert.net>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 23:24:19 -0500
Rick, there could be only one logic to this - the guy might not have a decent TX antenna to cover 3670. 73 Yuri VE3DZ observed the following....US station N2XYZ cqing on a 3820 +- freq and qsx on 367
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00028.html (7,454 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] logic here? (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 01:12:45 -0700
There were many doing this. I also wondered why????? Old habits die hard? Rick, there could be only one logic to this - the guy might not have a decent TX antenna to cover 3670. 73 Yuri VE3DZ observe
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00030.html (8,734 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] logic here? (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Dougherty" <nq4i@contesting.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 04:35:39 -0500
observed the following....US station N2XYZ cqing on a 3820 +- freq and qsx on 3670+- freq...why do this? Why not cq on 3670 and listen on that same freq? We now have the privileges for the freq and t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00031.html (9,369 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] logic here? (score: 1)
Author: "Dick Pechie" <kb1h@myeastern.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 07:53:58 -0500
I confess, I was one of those and probably the station Rick mentions. What little operating I have done so far this weekend on 80M I for one have found the rate to be better operating the "old" way.
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00032.html (9,237 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] logic here? (score: 1)
Author: "Randy Thompson" <k5zd@charter.net>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:52:09 -0000
I called a lot of CQs betweem 3650 and 3720 and got only a few answers. The guys Cqing up above 3800 seemed to be doing better. Results drive actions! It was strange to have all that wide open space
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00033.html (10,677 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] logic here? (score: 1)
Author: Zack Widup <w9sz@prairienet.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 08:52:05 -0600 (CST)
That's a good point. Just because we know we can now go down to 3600 kHz doesn't mean the DX knows it. Many might still be expecting us to be calling CQ up around 3800. 73, Zack W9SZ k ______________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00034.html (8,737 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] logic here? (score: 1)
Author: Jack Brindle <jackbrindle@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:48:58 -0800
I noticed this as well last night (after commenting on Rick's post). I agree that it probably has a lot to do with having always done things this way in the past. I also noticed that things pretty we
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00035.html (10,188 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] logic here? (score: 1)
Author: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 20:54:22 +0100
For us it is much easier to listen for statesite above 3800 then within the 9+ qrm wall from stations near the frequency 73 Peter I noticed this as well last night (after commenting on Rick's post).
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00036.html (8,588 bytes)

12. [CQ-Contest] logic here? (score: 1)
Author: "Tim Goeppinger" <timgep@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 00:57:54 +0000
The only JA I worked on 80m was JA3YBK, and he was up around 3810, and I think he was listening in the 3600's. I was thankful for the mult, but the split left me scratching my head. Tim K6GEP _______
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00038.html (8,427 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] logic here? (score: 1)
Author: "Cooper, Stewart" <coopers@odl.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 09:20:19 -0000
It's much quieter for me on 3820 than 3670, and I'm more likely to try to listen for US above 3800. Plus, my antenna is cut for 3750, which is OK for transmissions on 3670. So the logic (if the guy w
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00043.html (9,799 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] logic here? (score: 1)
Author: "Richard DiDonna NN3W" <nn3w@cox.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 08:22:10 -0500
It was really wierd. I too called around 3.690 and the rates were horrible - 1.5 a minute tops. I was having more success picking off packets spots. This is the first real DX test utilizing the new s
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00045.html (12,943 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] logic here? (score: 1)
Author: "Bob I.2.WIJ" <i2wij@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 08:09:04 -0800 (PST)
Hi all, apologise in advance my friends, but to me I see no logic at all here! I would have seen "logic" that someone would have been so kind to remember me (and all the DX contesting community) of t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00049.html (9,073 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu