Hopefully, it won't come to that. After doing more thinking about this - I think I can articulate what it is about grid circling that really makes it incompatible with the rest of the contest. For t
Hey - so what are the payoffs for EME? I would like to hear from people who have been active on EME during the contests - especially the June VHF contest. I am considering shelling out the "big buck
This is true in general - people love to whine... but this is a topic that has come up over and over - even trying to be solved at one point, with failure. This is more than a whine. I view it as an
And as some people pointed out, the 2nd and 3rd stations in a grid circling operation probably come close to fitting the description. The only difference being - that they also work themselves (whic
K1KI asks: I have had similar experiences with Tom with sharing logs - and K5TR is to be congratulated on making his logs public domain. Tree PS: For thsoe who are "demanding proof" of captive rovers
Which do you think is more healthy for the contest: 1. Equiping a rover that ends up only working W2SZ. 2. Equiping a rover that works W2SZ and a bunch of other stations? Tree _______________________
I don't think you need to wait. It is very easy to establish "non exclusive" status as a rover on the other bands. Tree N6TR _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list
Perhaps some real data might help illustrate. In a recent VHF contest (January), one of us uncalibrated HF contest types participated in the N6NB team. Here is the log from that effort: www.kkn.net/
An important point - most, if not all, of the rovers who are on microwave are also on VHF. In most places in the country, it is pretty easy to work a handful of stations on 144.200 with a modest set
Would someone be willing to post the W2SZ logs? That would settle this. 73 Tree N6TR tree@kkn.net _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontesting@contesting.
This is probably the freshest idea I have heard in this discussion. This could probably be automated into the log checking software. 10 percent of the score might be a little too restrictive - since
This is not a court of law - it is a public debate about an issue. Again, if you want to see a grid circling "captive" rover - please look over this log: http://www.kkn.net/~k5tr/logs/n6zz-Jan-2005.l
Made about 5 QSOs - if you didn't tune the big knob in the center of your radio off of 144.200 - you probably didn't work me. Think we should use the NCJ sprint QSY rule to help spread things out. At
and it was a much better game than the men's too. _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontesting@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/
Here is where the QSY rule shines in my opinion. Let's say you have W7EW calling CQ on the calling frequency - and W7AT answers him. You are N6TR and can't hear W7EW (or have already worked him), but
I guess I see the use of the QSY rule in VHFing as a way to kick the big gun off the calling frequency for a short period of time and make them QSY to another frequency. I don't really understand how
Well - I think that is a lot more extreme than what I am proposing. There are many situations where the calling frequency might be the only way to generate some activity on the band. No problem - he
I don't agree with your last two statements - but so be it. I read this and realize that I live in a totaly different world. If the big guns already avoid the calling frequency (which is not the norm
I have used these with RG8 (bury-flex) and RG11 coax and even RG8X (with adapter). The biggest issue I have with them is that the Bury Flex's center conductor is too large to fit into the center cond
This is a new twist on using your 40 meter dipole on 15 meters. A dipole doing this will have lobes off the ends - so you might find the best direction is "off the side" of the beam. Maybe the elemen