Mail Archive Search: <+from:ku8e1@yahoo.com>

Results:

References: [ +from:ku8e1@yahoo.com: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: re: 160m band plan and CQWW SSB contest (score: 1): Author: ku8e1@yahoo.com (Jeffrey Clarke); Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:18:13 -0700 (PDT); N4TZ wrote on contesting.com: -- Given the FCC "enforcement" of the "gentlemens agreement" on 160m, whereby we are supposed to stay above 1843 on SSB, where should I look for my 160m multipliers in t; /archives//html/Topband/2001-10/msg00110.html (7,873 bytes)
2. Topband: re : CQWW SSB & Our Continuing Bandplan Discussions.... (score: 1): Author: ku8e1@yahoo.com (Jeffrey Clarke); Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:10:56 -0700 (PDT); To cut to the chase very quickly, I think it is fair to say that MOST of us are worrying MOST about what will likely happen if WE PERSONALLY make a sincere attempt to honor our new 160M bandplan by N; /archives//html/Topband/2001-10/msg00135.html (9,142 bytes)
3. Topband: CQWW DX SSB and 160 Meter Band Plan - K4ZDH's Response (score: 1): Author: ku8e1@yahoo.com (Jeffrey Clarke); Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 06:26:18 -0700 (PDT); K1ZM recently asked K4ZDH for guidance with respect to our upcoming CQWW SSB contest operations. Specifically, it was asked if he expected the new 160M bandplan to be supported and if he might be lis; /archives//html/Topband/2001-10/msg00156.html (7,325 bytes)
4. Topband: PJ2T during CQWW CW (score: 1): Author: ku8e1@yahoo.com (Jeffrey Clarke); Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 06:37:59 -0800 (PST); I would like to get some reports from anyone who worked us as PJ2T on 160 meters during CQWW CW. Condx did not seem to be very good for us. Signals were even weak from the USA most of the time, espec; /archives//html/Topband/2000-12/msg00001.html (7,526 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]