The first real debate about local spotting network with one club winning over the other club was in 1946 in DC area. I think the other club was PVRC or PVRC predecessor. CQ WW was not yet called CQ W
Many details seem to match. Like the contest. It was not yet CQ WW. There is a possibility I remember the year to wrong decade. It may have been in 30's. 56MHz was probably not in ham use anymore in
For M2, you do not need a PTT interlocking device if you use two radios. If you use two radios per band, then you need a PTT interlock for those two radios on each band. If you use a third radio for
Oh .. and about operating on the same band.. You use LP. If you have separate antennas for each radio, you should have no problems. If you want to share the antennas, I do not know of any commercial
Sirs, I have difficulties following this discussion. There are people selling the idea to allow self-spotting. Which way are we going: -allowing CQ calling on internet -keeping the un-assisted catego
Basically, there is no difference. For a CQ on a contest frequency band using the contest transmit mode, it is a call in the contest. For a CQ on internet is a CQ on the internet. The difference come
Good. I hope the World of contest judging would be so simple. There is more. Next question we see in the Pandora's box: HE4RME complains on CQ-Contest reflector: I called CQ on Internet Protocol. I w
In ham radio contesting, you are your own entry's referee. There are no spectators in your shack. Your peers trust You. http://wwrof.org/contester-code-of-ethics/ 73, Jukka OH6LI ____________________
... Current procedure for late logs is the logs will be given a score and the late logs are with the result list. The late log results are printed in italics .. the forward leaning font. The best par
I found an example on SSB that might interest many. SJ2W performs really nice on SSB, in a serial number contest. That happens while CQing interlocked on two bands for a good part of the contest: htt
Many have been thinking if they could start learn to call two CQs. Smaller pistols can win considerably bigger stations if the small pistol masters the dual CQ well enough. The major pitfall, the err
Not many seem to know this. I think CQWW CC is a team with a lot of talent and energy. http://cqww.com/contact.htm 73, Jukka OH6LI _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing l
Setting spot filters right will help guessing what is the best spot to click. Finding new variables for optimizing the operating efficiency is one of the near-future developments. To see the spot dev
Hi all, I am happy we are bringing up new ideas. To filter spots, we need to start at thinking what do we want to accomplish. What features we are after. -we want to know where the mults are (done) -
PI4CC have a very good single stub system. https://www.pi4cc.nl/tech-info/stubs/ PI4CC have most likely believed the people claiming the double stub would be just 6dB better than a double stub. PI4CC
OK Peter, The discrete component based solution is better as you have acquired the necessary skills. Taking into account your space limitations, your solution is excellent. At OH0V, we built a separa
100W output is adequate for nearly all today's transmitters. IMD properties for the expensive transceiver boxes are much better than at 200W out. These hams set the power output to 100W. They set it
https://www.si.com/tech-media/2017/02/09/esports-industry-expectations-billion-dollar Contesting was invented long before e-Sports. Is there a room for improvement? The unknown factors are great in C
I looked at that list, And did not see a Yaesu Ft-847. Excellent cruising-on-the-bands radio. Very good for single operator 1 radio efforts. Not suitable for top multi-radio contesting scores with ma
Huh? TS590 is in same cost category. TS590 is well suitable even to most demanding multi radio record breaking efforts. FT847 is behind TS590 in RF performance, but user interface seems better in FT8