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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+CQ\s+WW\s+VHF\s+Contest\s+Rules\s+Change\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [VHFcontesting] CQ WW VHF Contest Rules Change (score: 1): Author: "Les Rayburn" <les@highnoonfilm.com>; Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:47:46 -0600; The February 2011 issue of CQ Magazine includes contest results for last year's "CQ WW VHF" contest, and an explanation of their decision to allow "passive assistance" starting with the 2011 event. C; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2011-02/msg00015.html (9,061 bytes)
2. Re: [VHFcontesting] CQ WW VHF Contest Rules Change (score: 1): Author: Tom Carney <tomc@carneysugai.com>; Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:33:26 -0800; OK, I'll bite. What is "passive assistance"? Is that just the assisted class in HF contesting that allows you to monitor a cluster but no self spotting? 73, Tom K6EU _________________________________; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2011-02/msg00016.html (10,932 bytes)
3. Re: [VHFcontesting] CQ WW VHF Contest Rules Change (score: 1): Author: n8ofs@mjbrowns.com; Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:54:03 -0700; the events... Yea really... The same big guns are going to win no matter what rule changes are made... Some of us are not even remotely concerned with winning... We are only concerned with having th; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2011-02/msg00018.html (8,896 bytes)
4. Re: [VHFcontesting] CQ WW VHF Contest Rules Change (score: 1): Author: David All <n3xudfm19@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 13:18:43 -0500; I dont get CQ Magazine, can you detail what "passive assistance" is. Thanks for making those of us in the contesting world who dont subscribe to this Fantastic Magazine aware of what appears to be so; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2011-02/msg00019.html (11,925 bytes)
5. Re: [VHFcontesting] CQ WW VHF Contest Rules Change (score: 1): Author: "Les Rayburn" <les@highnoonfilm.com>; Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:03:41 -0600; I also share your concerns about moving out of the lower 4 categories. Right now, I have 902 and 1296 as well...but it's hard for me to justify spending the additional money to get into the Microwave; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2011-02/msg00021.html (12,621 bytes)
6. Re: [VHFcontesting] CQ WW VHF Contest Rules Change (score: 1): Author: n8ofs@mjbrowns.com; Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 05:01:37 -0700; If the Contest says VHF, it should be limited to 6M, 2M, and 1.25M, PERIOD!!! Andy N8OFS GOT6??? (now a General Class so I can get on 29.6FM)... _______________________________________________ VHFcon; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2011-02/msg00022.html (7,935 bytes)
7. Re: [VHFcontesting] CQ WW VHF Contest Rules Change (score: 1): Author: Zack Widup <w9sz.zack@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:46 -0600; All the ARRL "VHF" contests include all amateur bands 50 MHz and up. Actually, those upper bands are what entice me the most. I've spent a lot of time and money so far to get on the bands through 10; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2011-02/msg00023.html (8,936 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]