Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+\[Contest\]\s+2020\s+June\s+VHF\s+Contest\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] [Contest] 2020 June VHF Contest (score: 1)
Author: Courtney Judd <k4wi@k4wi.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 15:13:25 -0500
well, sure hate to miss this one but my announcement 01/01/2020 regarding mixing digi with CW/SSB/RTTY contests still stands. K4WI/NA4W will no longer compete in any contests that permits FT8 to comp
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-06/msg00179.html (8,599 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] [Contest] 2020 June VHF Contest (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 14:23:19 -0700
I use FT8 a lot on 160 for long haul DX that I can't work on CW, and on 6M for E-skip chasing grids, but I have so far not gotten excited about FT8/FT4 contesting. That said, I see little difference
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-06/msg00180.html (7,961 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] [Contest] 2020 June VHF Contest (score: 1)
Author: Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 23:28:14 +0100
<snip> I see little difference between the attitude expressed in this post and those who, in the '50s and '60s, refused to switch to that new-fangled SSB. I also fail to see how FT8 differs from RTTY
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-06/msg00181.html (8,461 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] [Contest] 2020 June VHF Contest (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Clarke <ku8e@ku8e.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 19:18:42 -0400
Sure hope people don't opertae FT8 all weekend. When signals get over 0db please try CW/SSB. 6 meters has been open almost all day to the Caribbean, Central American and Northern South America from m
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-06/msg00182.html (8,948 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] [Contest] 2020 June VHF Contest (score: 1)
Author: beaudoin <wa1fcn@charter.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 22:10:25 -0500
    GE Jim         My view from someone who has spent a fair amount of time with FT8.         FT8 is more like fishing in a barrel. RTTY to me is much more difficult and involved .                 73
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-06/msg00183.html (9,403 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] [Contest] 2020 June VHF Contest (score: 1)
Author: it9blb@infcom.it
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 08:49:53 +0200 (CEST)
I support 101% Paul's suggestion. IMHO ARRL is supporting FT8/4 in the worst possible way, mixing apples with potatoes and ravaging any worth in lot of HAM sections. As many other people, I already s
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-06/msg00185.html (9,424 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] [Contest] 2020 June VHF Contest (score: 1)
Author: Fabio via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:13:41 +0200 (CEST)
I agree but: - the digital mode activity is growing due to its possibilities; - in few years there will be much more activity on FT8/FT4 than on other modes (expecially if they will find a way to red
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-06/msg00186.html (10,212 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] [Contest] 2020 June VHF Contest (score: 1)
Author: Hans Brakob <kzerohb@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:09:58 +0000
Time out! Ham Radio is a small and diminishing hobby, and contesting is a grey-haired sub-hobby of that. And here we are, demonizing each other based on which sub-sub-hobby (mode) happens to be our p
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-06/msg00187.html (8,675 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu