Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:nate@natetech.com: 207 ]

Total 207 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [VHFcontesting] 902 MHz (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:04:41 -0600
Don't know about local activity there, but most areas with FM 900 MHz simplex activity are using 927.5 MHz as a calling/simplex frequency, and most folks have that programmed in their radios. Sometim
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00130.html (7,705 bytes)

22. Re: [VHFcontesting] Banning The Use Of 144.200 MHz During Contests (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:24:47 -0600
Hi Jim, My rational answer to your question is a question: Restating your question: A. Is there sufficient reason for change? My question to you is: - Are there any specific operational problems curr
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00156.html (8,455 bytes)

23. Re: [VHFcontesting] 144.200 (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:23:16 -0600
Pre-self-spotting. :-) Why then not allow fully-internet connected and digipeated APRS then? (Just stirring THAT pot.) At least that's ham radio driven, even if it eventually ends up on the Net. I st
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00214.html (16,011 bytes)

24. Re: [VHFcontesting] Contesting in general (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:25:17 -0600
Sounds like the mathematically most effective technique for that contest would be to be a rover and drive to the repeater sites. If they won't put out a decent signal, just take your station higher u
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00215.html (7,970 bytes)

25. Re: [VHFcontesting] Contesting in general (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:33:46 -0600
SAR training on the calling frequency? Who would do THAT? (See the slippery slope here of even HAVING a calling frequency?) It was neat to see myself in your propagation logs after the contest, Ev. W
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00216.html (8,510 bytes)

26. Re: [VHFcontesting] FM in VHF Contesting (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:46:56 -0600
Put a "good" gain vertical on the top of the yagi stack. :-) Nate WY0X _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontesting@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00254.html (8,843 bytes)

27. Re: [VHFcontesting] 100D vs 857D (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:04:51 -0600
The FT-857 has the ability to set the SSB and FM audio levels separately, which is a plus for multiple-ops without having audio that is way overdriven on FM, etc. Also the FT-857 does have a "transve
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-07/msg00044.html (7,976 bytes)

28. Re: [VHFcontesting] CQ WW VHF from KC9BQA EN63ao (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:24:45 -0600
Those fit in a laptop computer for us Rovers? :-) Seriously - what options are out there that work off a USB audio interface? Is there one? Nate WY0X _______________________________________________ V
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-07/msg00116.html (7,475 bytes)

29. Re: [VHFcontesting] LoTW for Rovers (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:29:49 -0600
Completely missed requirements in the database design specification, would be the root-cause problem here. Sounds like time for Version 2. Nate _______________________________________________ VHFcont
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-07/msg00117.html (9,222 bytes)

30. Re: [VHFcontesting] DSL router/VHF-UHF noise question (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:06:27 -0600
I have a Linksys WRT54GS which is quiet, and a D-Link 802.11g to Ethernet bridge that smashes almost all of UHF with noise. Nate WY0X _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mai
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-07/msg00166.html (7,860 bytes)

31. Re: [VHFcontesting] DSL router/VHF-UHF noise question (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:01:26 -0600
I was thinking about wrapping it in steel -- otherwise known as a trash can. To make sure it'll never make noise on a ham band again. :-) Nate _______________________________________________ VHFconte
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-07/msg00170.html (8,010 bytes)

32. [VHFcontesting] contest sponsorship pitfalls (was: Re: poll cont...) (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 00:49:31 -0700
The thing that worries me most about sponsors is eventually you end up with McDonald's sponsoring the food at the Marathon, as if their restaurants served healthy food worthy of being served to marat
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-11/msg00021.html (11,108 bytes)

33. Re: [VHFcontesting] Captive Roving...whatever that is, really (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:12:01 -0700
During years when 6m doesn't open out here in the wide-open land of Colorado, ALL of our so-called "unique callsign scores" which Ev recommends, will suck. We'll work the same 10-20 guys all weekend,
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-11/msg00050.html (11,691 bytes)

34. Re: [VHFcontesting] Captive Roving...whatever that is, really (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:25:59 -0700
The key point in my request was that NON-ham participants wanted to "spectate". Similar to your proposals to make Ham Radio more like sporting contests, and real-time. (GRIN)... In fact, it was proba
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-11/msg00057.html (10,765 bytes)

35. Re: [VHFcontesting] Antenna stacking distance (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:27:47 -0700
Keep working on it -- the ham shack is never "done"! :-) Nate WY0X _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontesting@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-11/msg00058.html (7,733 bytes)

36. Re: [VHFcontesting] HamIM/APRS and Non-ham observers [was: CaptiveRoving...] (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:35:11 -0700
I interpreted the rules restricting no more than one transmitter active per band to mean that if the APRS is on VHF, the VHF SSB must be off, or vice-versa. Wouldn't you agree? Nate WY0X ____________
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-11/msg00090.html (7,795 bytes)

37. Re: [VHFcontesting] HamIM/APRS and Non-ham observers [was: CaptiveRoving...] (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 12:35:31 -0700
I was using a D-700, no TNC. My experience with this was that the QRM from the 144.X SSB radio would overload the D700 enough that it thought the channel was CLEAR, not busy, and it would transmit. (
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-11/msg00094.html (11,479 bytes)

38. Re: [VHFcontesting] Optium antenna height (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 12:50:04 -0700
Kinda a "tongue-in-cheek" response but... If there's a maximum height, I'd better go pull the club's VHF and UHF repeaters that are at 11,440' MSL (which averages 'bout 6000 HAAT around here) down an
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-12/msg00001.html (7,792 bytes)

39. [VHFcontesting] QSL's (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 11:11:04 -0700
Hello everyone, Many of you have probably started to receive my QSL cards and thank you letter to everyone I worked in the June 2006 ARRL VHF Contest. A couple of astute hams here in Colorado noticed
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-12/msg00031.html (7,718 bytes)

40. Re: [VHFcontesting] June 06 VHF QSO Party LCRs now available (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 03:10:58 -0700
Thanks for letting us all know this was posted. I was far sloppier than I thought I was. Since we're sitting here with close to 3 feet of snow on the ground and blizzard conditions -- it's a good tim
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-12/msg00040.html (8,222 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu