Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:k4ik@subich.com: 112 ]

Total 112 documents matching your query.

41. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2005 Dayton Forum Wrap Up (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:12:54 -0400
And what happens to the small manufacturer who makes products used in many different segments of amateur radio when the DX forum is in one hotel, the antenna and contest forums are in another hotel,
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-06/msg00084.html (9,946 bytes)

42. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2005 Dayton Forum Wrap Up (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 21:21:36 -0400
Until this year there had never been forums operating independently downtown. How long do you think it will be before AMSAT, the RTTY folks, or the VHF/UHF weak signal folks decide they might want la
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-06/msg00102.html (11,002 bytes)

43. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2005 Dayton Forum Wrap Up (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 21:37:33 -0400
Every trade show and major convention that I know of that has a "forum" schedule has a constant battle between forum schedules and the exhibitors. The exhibitors are there for the maximum possible tr
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-06/msg00103.html (10,155 bytes)

44. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2005 Dayton Forum Wrap Up (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:14:34 -0400
Those "other, smaller groups" have not always been so small and may not be so small in the future. I know there have been issues between each of them and the Hamvention Committee over the years. Just
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-06/msg00116.html (12,704 bytes)

45. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2005 Dayton Forum Wrap Up (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:30:39 -0400
The attendance numbers released by DARA (ARRL Letter) point out the real issue. Attendance of 22K is less than 40% of what it was in the late 70's and early 80's ... back when the event was two days
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-06/msg00137.html (10,873 bytes)

46. RE: [CQ-Contest] RE: SO2R with KENWOOD Radios +++ (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:01:00 -0500
For those using Icom radios or not into kit building, MicroHam makes a unit that will decode the serial band data for any flavor of radio as well as providing CW and PTT drivers (open collector trans
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-01/msg00324.html (9,386 bytes)

47. RE: [CQ-Contest] RE: SO2R with KENWOOD Radios +++ (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:18:03 -0500
The problem is the need to "read" the serial data stream and catch the proper VFO commands. That requires a UART in, some intelligence (PIC or more advanced microprocessor), a UART out and a paralle
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-01/msg00332.html (10,347 bytes)

48. RE: [CQ-Contest] SO2R without LPT port Was: RE: SO2R with KENWOODRadios +++ (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:05:02 -0500
I don't know ... it depends on the logging software, what the hardware supports and how well the USB virtual port drivers are written. As far as I can tell, most of the logging software is using dir
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-01/msg00334.html (9,969 bytes)

49. RE: [CQ-Contest] CW Sprint vs RTTY Contest QRM (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 23:01:35 -0500
Jeff, Why would a domestic contest not move up in the band (7080 to 7150 should be plenty of room) rather than fight it out with RTTY operators during an international contest in the only area of the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-02/msg00077.html (9,459 bytes)

50. RE: [CQ-Contest] RTTY and CW Sprints (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:34:39 -0500
http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-02/msg00086.html Unfortunately, since you posted the suggestion that FOC Marathon and CQ/RJ WPX RTTY be scheduled for the same weekend, the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-02/msg00119.html (9,492 bytes)

51. RE: [CQ-Contest] RTTY and CW Sprints (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:28:29 -0500
Jeff, Before you go casting stones, go look at any of the Contest Calendars and tell me one weekend this year that has not had a CW contest of some kind. By the way, your own posting shows at least f
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-02/msg00143.html (10,517 bytes)

52. RE: [CQ-Contest] Sprint Alternatives (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 20:17:36 -0500
How about a 'WARC' band sprint 30, 17, 12 meters ... _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-02/msg00186.html (7,622 bytes)

53. Re: [CQ-Contest] IRLP Contest (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:27:52 -0500
I heartily agree ... IRLP and/or Echolink are not, in any way, shape or form, amateur radio. Their promotion by ARRL is a bigger threat to amateur radio than BPL, local tower ordinances, local regula
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00246.html (9,335 bytes)

54. Re: [CQ-Contest] IRLP Contest (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:29:53 -0500
Craig, IRLP may be ONLY a linking protocol, but I guarantee you I could buy an IRLP "kit" and interface it to a headset and keypad very easily. I would then have a "baseband node" that would permit m
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00254.html (11,974 bytes)

55. Re: [CQ-Contest] IRLP Contest (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:29:58 -0500
I was taken to task off the reflector for overreacting to the ARRL's reporting, on a "slow news day" of a release by another group not affiliated with the League. I am concerned about the implication
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00291.html (11,542 bytes)

56. Re: [CQ-Contest] IRLP (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:48:11 -0500
I have no doubt that technology will supplant radio communication just as the automobile has supplanted walking. However, just as we maintain wilderness areas (National Parks, suburban nature preserv
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00310.html (8,198 bytes)

57. Re: [CQ-Contest] 14.300 MHz (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:43:32 -0500
That's a problem for the manufacturers who recommend ILLEGAL operation. Non-Amateur stations have no right, under any circumstances to use amateur frequencies. The US Coast Guard, other governments,
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00410.html (11,949 bytes)

58. Re: [CQ-Contest] 14.300 MHz (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:07:07 -0500
... and if my life were on the line, I hope it would be a contester with his three high stack of big yagis and well trained ears trying to pull through my weak signal and not some easy chair mission
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00429.html (10,280 bytes)

59. Re: [CQ-Contest] 14.300 MHz (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:32:28 -0500
As I pointed out, every US amateur acknowledges that he has no "right" to any specific frequency. That applies to these so called public service nets as well. However, someone else pointed out to me
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00436.html (10,594 bytes)

60. Re: [CQ-Contest] 14.300 MHz (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:53:01 -0500
Bill, no sooner do you start carving out a 6 KHz hole (3 KHz is enough if they had real receivers and knew how to use them) and every crackpot group (including 14,230) will want their own 10 KHz wide
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00451.html (10,162 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu