Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:w0mu@w0mu.com: 993 ]

Total 993 documents matching your query.

221. Re: [CQ-Contest] arrl dx ssb spotting report (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:56:33 -0600
Three of them used the same Ip address and the other one was in the same block. Which means the same person. "A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over.
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00214.html (9,483 bytes)

222. Re: [CQ-Contest] arrl dx ssb spotting report (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:57:44 -0600
While I was not trying to lump all Caribbean stations together I can see how it could have been taken that way. That was not the intent of my comment. There seem to be a few interesting issues brough
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00226.html (9,728 bytes)

223. Re: [CQ-Contest] arrl dx ssb spotting report (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:05:00 -0600
Self spotting is not allowed by the rules. Packet is, self spotting is not. Cheerleading is not against the rules. Spotting yourself is. I even had a station ask me to spot him. My interpretation of
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00227.html (10,503 bytes)

224. Re: [CQ-Contest] arrl dx ssb spotting report (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:34:39 -0600
I don't have a recording of the exchange. I normally don't record contests. Maybe I should start. "A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over." Ben Frank
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00249.html (12,483 bytes)

225. Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:39:26 -0600
And everyone MUST have a computer. I guess if your computer dies during the test you are done But sure someone could do this. "A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you ma
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00251.html (11,204 bytes)

226. Re: [CQ-Contest] An Examination of K1TTT's Reports (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 08:30:20 -0600
Pretty simple. If nobody spots, then there are no spots. More spots encourages more spots. Spots help competitors in all classes and those not competing. I don't spot stations that I need for a mult
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00271.html (9,905 bytes)

227. Re: [RTTY] Sprint Rules Question (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:01:05 -0600
While dueling CQ's is fine. I think it is contrary to the intent of the rules. I think you should not be allowed to make same band contacts on the same frequency just because you made one on in betwe
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00272.html (9,308 bytes)

228. Re: [RTTY] Sprint Rules Question (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:04:57 -0600
SO2R IMHO has effectively exploited the rules. A single radio station does not have this capability to circumvent what I believe was the intent of the rules. I don't believe the intent of the contest
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00282.html (9,404 bytes)

229. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX Rules FAQ (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:05:26 -0600
One question: Can the run station and the multiplier station transmit at the same time? Yes, but only if the multiplier station is calling a new multiplier. The multiplier station can not be used to
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00297.html (10,290 bytes)

230. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX Rules FAQ (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:43:14 -0600
Yep I read the rules wrong. For some reason I thought you could have a multiplier station working stations on the same band at the same time the run station was running. Which I did not think was all
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00299.html (13,235 bytes)

231. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX Off-Times Can't be assumed! (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:55:00 -0600
You can skip as much time as you want at the beginning. That time is not counted toward off time. For example: You get home late and start at 0400, instead of 0000z. You still have 36 hours of operat
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00356.html (9,183 bytes)

232. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX OffTimes (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:38:09 -0600
Try this on for size, I was at the radio ready to go and a wind storm took the power out for 35 min, when I get power back it take's another 10 minutes to get the radio and amp going along with the c
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00370.html (9,787 bytes)

233. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX OffTimes (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:41:00 -0600
The same thing could happen in the middle of your operating time and, yes, it would be subject to the 60-minute minimum off time rule. But your original example, where it occurs before you made your
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00371.html (9,321 bytes)

234. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX Multi-Single Question (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:18:50 -0600
Yes you can have a second transmitter that can only work multipliers on a different band. Once it makes a contact on that band it must stay on that band for 10 minutes before working another multipli
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00452.html (9,664 bytes)

235. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:53:58 -0600
That is wrong in many ways assuming these stations were really competing and intend to submit a log. If not there is not much that can be done. (e) All operation must take place from one operating si
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00566.html (9,417 bytes)

236. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:15:46 -0600
I think we need to address all forms of cheating. I was surprised by the calls of the stations that were doing this. You address what you can. Why has excessive power never been addressed? Simply bec
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00009.html (12,061 bytes)

237. Re: [CQ-Contest] Alpha parts (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 20:09:38 -0600
www.alpharadioproducts.com ?? CC Packet Cluster W0MU-1 W0MU.NET or 67.40.148.194 "A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over." Ben Franklin My main conte
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00030.html (8,080 bytes)

238. Re: [CQ-Contest] [PaQSO] 2009 PAQSO Party Announcements (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 20:16:15 -0600
Hmmm I could have sworn I won. My rules stated that if I sent in $100 I would be named the winner. Did you get the robot message that while your participation was appreciated the robot could only acc
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00031.html (8,976 bytes)

239. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:37:34 -0600
Steve, You hit the nail on the head with what is wrong with the world. We have people and agencies doing things they have absolutely no authority to be doing what it is they are doing. I am not empow
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00068.html (10,349 bytes)

240. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:41:07 -0600
I am impressed. I have always wondered but never took the time to lookup calls when I run on 40m below the General subband on 40 on SSB to see how many were our of their band allocation. CC Packet Cl
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00070.html (13,119 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu