Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Is\s+the\s+Cluster\s+losing\s+its\s+Luster\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Is\s+the\s+Cluster\s+losing\s+its\s+Luster\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Is the Cluster losing its Luster (score: 1): Author: "Paul Mackanos - K2DB" <k2db@k2db.com>; Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:52:09 -0500; I was wondering if as a contester, how you feel on the use of the packet cluster when contesting on CW. 1) Do you use a regular cluster node such as K1TTT ? 2) Do you use the Reverse Beacon network n; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-02/msg00421.html (8,154 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Is the Cluster losing its Luster (score: 1): Author: Fabian Kurz <mail@fkurz.net>; Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:10:17 +0100; My experience is that the RBN is _significantly_ more useful than the DX cluster, simply because everyone is spotted and the network of Skimmers is now dense enough to give a very accurate picture of; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-02/msg00430.html (8,261 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Is the Cluster losing its Luster (score: 1): Author: "KB1H" <kb1h@ct.metrocast.net>; Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:19:43 -0500; During ARRL DX we used both the cluster and RBN. We also run our own skimmer which has public access, not a closed system. If skimmer operators choose the "Paranoid" mode it is amazing how accurate t; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-02/msg00432.html (11,099 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Is the Cluster losing its Luster (score: 1): Author: Mike Fatchett W0MU <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:26:39 -0700; I used my cluster W0MU-1, w0mu.net, shameless plug . Keep in mind that most clusters are all tied together so one bad spot will propagate to nearly every other spot outlet available. I have used the; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-02/msg00433.html (9,769 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]