Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+No\s+432\s+mHz\s+op\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+No\s+432\s+mHz\s+op\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [VHFcontesting] No 432 mHz op (score: 1): Author: "Darrell W4CX" <w4cx@bellsouth.net>; Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:25:26 -0400; I see some comments on this reflector re: using 432 this weekend on the contest. I went back and looked at the rules which say: III. Bands: All authorized amateur radio frequencies on 50 MHz (6 meter; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-07/msg00173.html (7,901 bytes)
2. Re: [VHFcontesting] No 432 mHz op (score: 1): Author: "Ellen Rugowski" <ellenjoanne2003@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:59:50 -0500; Yuppers, No 432, and the Euros can't 70 MHz either. 73, Ellen - AF9J 3:30 PM _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontesting@contesting.com http://lists.conte; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-07/msg00174.html (9,482 bytes)
3. Re: [VHFcontesting] No 432 mHz op (score: 1): Author: Tom Carney <tomc7@earthlink.net>; Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:55:50 -0700; I've never understood the logic behind not allowing 4M in this contest. After all it is a WW VHF contest. Maybe 4M is treated somewhat like the WARC bands, IE no contesting. 73, Tom K6EU aka K6EU/R _; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-07/msg00176.html (8,220 bytes)
4. Re: [VHFcontesting] No 432 mHz op (score: 1): Author: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@lcisp.com>; Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:59:27 -0000; And 222mhz should be allowed since it is a VHF band. Of course it is allowed in the UHF contest even though it isn't a UHF band. 73s John AA5JG _______________________________________________ VHFcont; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-07/msg00177.html (9,854 bytes)
5. Re: [VHFcontesting] No 432 mHz op (score: 1): Author: Dan_K9ZF <n9rla@yahoo.com>; Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:31:21 -0400; The way I understand it, one of the key points of this contest is to keep things "simple". Therefore limiting the bands to the basic 2 that most people have. I personally would like to see it include; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-07/msg00179.html (9,496 bytes)
6. Re: [VHFcontesting] No 432 mHz op (score: 1): Author: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@lcisp.com>; Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:37:29 -0000; I would at least like to see 432 added, as that would cover the above 10m bands on the 706/ft100/857/897/817/TS2000 radios, which is probably how many people get started in VHF contesting today. 73s; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-07/msg00181.html (10,586 bytes)
7. Re: [VHFcontesting] No 432 mHz op (score: 1): Author: "Ellen Rugowski" <ellenjoanne2003@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:39:50 -0500; 4m is kind of weird over in Europe. Yes, it's sort of like th WARC bands, but it's hard to get people on the band, since most hams have to roll, or modify commercial equipment for the 4m band. I don'; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-07/msg00182.html (10,395 bytes)
8. Re: [VHFcontesting] No 432 mHz op (score: 1): Author: Zack Widup <w9sz@prairienet.org>; Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:33:37 -0500 (CDT); I'd leave it just the way it is. Of course, there is nothing prohibiting you from working someone on any band not a part of the contest, you just can't count it for credit in the contest. I think it'; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-07/msg00189.html (9,290 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]