Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[ct\-user\]\s+CT\s+log\s+outputs\s+versus\s+ARRL\s+requirements\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[ct\-user\]\s+CT\s+log\s+outputs\s+versus\s+ARRL\s+requirements\s*$/: 5 ]

Total 5 documents matching your query.

1. [ct-user] CT log outputs versus ARRL requirements (score: 1): Author: Jim Pratt <n6ig@netcom.com> (Jim Pratt); Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 09:34:29 -0800 (PST); Group: With the ARRL's new-found fervor for enforcing log format and deadline requirements, I wanted to make sure the multi-two log I send in to the league is in compliance. The requirements from the; /archives//html/CT-User/1999-03/msg00048.html (9,589 bytes)
2. [ct-user] CT log outputs versus ARRL requirements (score: 1): Author: Michael S. Mitchell, W6RW" <w6rw@earthlink.net (Michael S. Mitchell, W6RW); Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 10:21:39 -0800; Hi Jim...we used CT version 9.27 for the ARRL CW contest as a multi-two entry. The "W6RW.LOG" file produced by CT is in perfect compliance with the ARRL requirements....including the state sent, a ze; /archives//html/CT-User/1999-03/msg00049.html (11,651 bytes)
3. [ct-user] CT log outputs versus ARRL requirements (score: 1): Author: Gilmer, Mike" <mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 13:45:40 -0500; Did you try WRITEARRL instead of WRITELOG? I think this is the correct command for ARRL-specific formats. Mike N2MG -- Submissions: ct-user@contesting.com Administrative requests: ct-user-REQUEST@con; /archives//html/CT-User/1999-03/msg00050.html (9,377 bytes)
4. [ct-user] CT log outputs versus ARRL requirements (score: 1): Author: Gary Yantis" <gyantis@midtec.com (Gary Yantis); Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 12:43:03 -0600; Jim -- I think you are looking at your .ALL file. For ARRL contests use the .LOG file. It should have been generated as N6IG.LOG when you did a WRITEARRL. I used 9.39 for last weekend's contest and t; /archives//html/CT-User/1999-03/msg00051.html (12,835 bytes)
5. [ct-user] CT log outputs versus ARRL requirements (score: 1): Author: Jim Pratt <n6ig@netcom.com> (Jim Pratt); Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 10:48:08 -0800 (PST); I was told that you needed to use a version above 9.34 for proper FT1000MP control. I used 9.23 for years, it was very stable. The addition of the MP precipitated the upgrade. Using 9.37A the state s; /archives//html/CT-User/1999-03/msg00052.html (8,746 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 5
Page: [1]