Does anyone know what standard/documentation ARRL/LotW requires of a QSL manager in order to obtain a certificate for a station he/she might manage? For those DX stations with a traditional QSL mana
It may be a disincentive if one is "making a profit" on the cards. However, I did an analysis of the "cost of confirmation" a few weeks ago and it looks like this: Including the cost of printing a c
True ... and the FAQs don't even specify a photo ID although most governments now issue photo based ID documents. "Every non-USA operator requesting an initial, unsigned certificate for Logbook of t
Nat, The sources are contradictory on this .. ARRL publishes one set of data here: http://www.arrl.org/contests/vev0vy.html#wkna. Until recently, IARU Region 2 had another map on the web that showed
Bill, It's no different than we did in the late 70s/early 80s with second receivers, or heaven forbid, two complete C-lines. Nobody talked much about it but listening for multipliers/openings on othe
You are 100% dead wrong ... I do not do SO2R but have absolutely no problem understanding that a better equipped station with a more proficient operator might choose to have a second rig on one band
If an SO2R station is calling CQ on two frequencies simultaneously, that's an abuse and should be stopped. It is a far different situation than the station who is using a second rig (or receiver) to
Bill, I like your idea but "dipole equivalents" only is perhaps a bit too restrictive - even WRTC used triband yagis. Now, an antenna limit of a single element (dipole or vertical) below 7 MHz and th
I intended to imply but failed to specify, 2 el max on 40. Of course ... 22 meters is a bit over 70 feet which seems like a reasonable number as a dividing line between the big guns with stacked yag
I disagree. Within a given region (state, section, call area, etc.) a "limited" category would eliminate the big variations among the external factors that effect score (e.g., power level, significan
... and I, in view of all the PRB-1 history, would argue that establishing a line below 70 feet we risk giving all the cities that would like to restrict towers a perfect argument for an excessively
That's typical of politicians who look only at raw numbers and make decisions based on polls (the Bill Clinton School of leadership). What the boys in Newintgon fail to realize (and the politicians
Fed on the side for vertical polarization, the quad (or any vertically polarized antenna) loses the "ground gain." On 20 meters over perfect ground: A horizontal dipole at 35' shows 7.33 dBi at a 27
Why not use an antenna analyzer (MFJ?) ... you can set it to any frequency you want. I would put a fixed 10 to 20 dB pad between it and the device under test and document signal levels before any pro
I was expecting a cost per credit in the $0.10 - $0.15 range similar to the per QSO charge in the DXCC program. $0.25 is on the high end but still reasonable compared to the cost of paper QSLs. Howev
I can't agree that LotW is too complicated for most people to use. As it is integrated more tightly into the logging programs, LotW will become completely transparent. Today it is possible to automat
I will never replace all QSLing with LotW, that is, I will continue to respond to bureau cards via the bureau and direct cards (with SASE) direct. However, I see no reason for any "premptive" QSLing
Like Doug, all of my "hard copy" QSLs have been uploaded to LotW. I have (had?) been entering the old paper logs going back to 1976 but am beginning to doubt that there is enough of a payoff to justi
Why are you saying the ARRL staff is always right? eQSL had a letter/email which stated that printed QSLs from anyone acting as a legitimate (authorized) QSL manager would be accepted. Someone among
You have opened a can of worms ... There is no need for the rest of the world to shut down just because of hurricane recovery. The list of frequencies to be "protected" that has been circulating rece