Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:ve4xt@mts.net: 348 ]

Total 348 documents matching your query.

41. [CQ-Contest] sending/rxing exchange (score: 1)
Author: ve4xt@mts.net (Kelly Taylor)
Date: Wed Mar 10 17:36:37 1999
Hi. Can anyone rebut this? The ARRL General rules state that for a QSO to occur, callsigns and exchange information must be sent correctly and received correctly by each station. It's not worded exac
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00176.html (7,217 bytes)

42. [CQ-Contest] Malicious inferences (score: 1)
Author: ve4xt@mts.net (Kelly Taylor)
Date: Wed Mar 10 17:49:59 1999
Having read the references to K0TEX and ZF2NT, I feel it's time to make the following announcement: XT Logs and Raytheonex Corp. have teamed up to bring you the QRM Destroyer. Available in tower-moun
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00177.html (7,815 bytes)

43. [CQ-Contest] All hail the 1 point Q! (score: 1)
Author: ve4xt@mts.net (Kelly Taylor)
Date: Mon Mar 29 02:14:56 1999
Well, well. Apocrypha has come and gone. The new world (prefix) order is upon us. We've seen the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. WPX has seen the first contest with 1 point QSOs begin and end. Can A
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00344.html (7,113 bytes)

44. [CQ-Contest] Re: Consider this (score: 1)
Author: ve4xt@mts.net (Kelly Taylor)
Date: Wed Apr 24 08:42:41 2002
First off, let me state I do not run SO2R, so this is not about protecting any turf. I don't believe SO2R warrants a separate category. W7ZR's analysis -- so statistically flawed on so many levels I
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00338.html (10,299 bytes)

45. [CQ-Contest] Consider This (score: 1)
Author: ve4xt@mts.net (Kelly Taylor)
Date: Wed Apr 24 21:46:52 2002
Comparing SO2R and assisted is not a fair analogy. Packet requires no skill, involves the assistance of others and makes mult hunting the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel. SO2R requires consid
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00360.html (10,351 bytes)

46. [CQ-Contest] Bogus check (score: 1)
Author: ve4xt@mts.net (Kelly Taylor)
Date: Tue Apr 30 20:46:05 2002
Hi all, Forgive me, but I fail to see what all the hand-wringing is about... I've always sent my "real" check (82), but only because when I first did SS (in 83), that's what seemed logical and I've s
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00464.html (6,937 bytes)

47. [CQ-Contest] Foot switches (score: 1)
Author: ve4xt@mts.net (Kelly Taylor)
Date: Fri May 3 21:57:49 2002
Hi all, I noted with interest Richard's query about the FS2 footswitch and Dale's piano man solution. Interesting. I noticed the FS2 has the hinge at the heel. Although it seems to make sense, it's a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-05/msg00034.html (8,276 bytes)

48. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW Filters for the Icom 706 Mark IIG (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:17:16 -0500
Not to challenge Yuri's observation, but I'm curious if others have noticed the blow-by he speaks of, and whether it's also a problem with the 706's main competitor, the FT-857D. Both, or either, are
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-08/msg00334.html (7,466 bytes)

49. Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Base (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:10:35 -0500
The rules say 'station location' which suggests to me that the station is where the operator is sitting. Be that as it may, given that the rules are silent on the issue, as long as he chooses one and
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-08/msg00349.html (8,836 bytes)

50. Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Base (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:15:40 -0500
If it's to be the transmitter location, then perhaps in SS I should be VE4XT/KP4, without all that nasty travel and stuff. Rare-ish prefix to gain attention and booming propagation to reel 'em in. Be
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-08/msg00357.html (10,329 bytes)

51. Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Base (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:53:11 -0500
We're starting to see bogeymen around every corner again... Most contests specify that all transmitters and receivers must be contained within some geography, usually 500 meters or 1,000 feet. The ru
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-08/msg00365.html (12,035 bytes)

52. Re: [CQ-Contest] Are the bands dead? (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 08:15:19 -0500
Funny how a couple hours changes things. I was setting up the station at about 22:00z for the Sprint and thought "Not going to be much of a contest." Could not hear WWV anywhere: not 2.5, 5, 10 or 15
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-09/msg00075.html (8,652 bytes)

53. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Multi-Single Rule (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:30:45 -0500
When the rules say there's an exception to the single transmitter rule, the rules are saying there is an exception to the single transmitter rule. Seems pretty clear to me. The contest committee woul
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-09/msg00101.html (11,437 bytes)

54. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Multi-Single Rule (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:20:31 -0500
There's only a disconnect if you choose to make this harder than it needs to be. Under the two transmitter rule, as stated here, there is no restriction on where those two transmitters may be or whom
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-09/msg00126.html (19,200 bytes)

55. Re: [CQ-Contest] Multi-single CQ WW rules (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:51:36 -0500
Since everybody is parsing rules so much and ignoring K3EST's own submission that a mult station is allowed (how can anyone argue with an authority as high as that in CQ contests?), I guess I'm going
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-09/msg00134.html (9,108 bytes)

56. Re: [CQ-Contest] Opinions on filters for TS 850 (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 14:37:59 -0500
Give the first IF the wider filter, the second IF the narrower. (Otherwise, there's no use using both at once...) As for the third slot, I'd suggest something like the INRAD 1.8 khz SSB filter. I kno
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-10/msg00015.html (8,897 bytes)

57. Re: [CQ-Contest] Pet Peeve (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 22:37:07 -0500
Why not just a rule that says anybody whose callsign doesn't match their location must signify such with the / designator? That way you know that VE4XT/W6 is in California and N6TR/7 is not. (Not pic
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-10/msg00052.html (8,866 bytes)

58. Re: [CQ-Contest] PTT control SO2R CW (was: Portable contest rigs) (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 21:21:57 -0500
Hmmm, I guess simplicity is in the eye of the beholder... My SO2R box is always plugged in to the computer. It's always plugged in to both radios' mic and headphone jacks. PTT happens through the LPT
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-10/msg00137.html (10,877 bytes)

59. Re: [CQ-Contest] Competing in the Daylight [was:UBN/Log disclosure...] (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 20:29:03 -0500
How? Real-time scoring would, or should, only show who was on, not where they were, other than possibly the band. Absent real-time actual frequency information, I fail to see how this is a threat to
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-10/msg00176.html (8,604 bytes)

60. Re: [CQ-Contest] Competing in the Daylight (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:57:08 -0500
I think the idea of competing in daylight is interesting, but I suspect it would be of limited popular appeal. And I don't know if anyone's thought about how we pay for this. The bread and butter of
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-10/msg00204.html (14,902 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu