Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+K4VV\s+in\s+ARRL\s+DX\s+CW\s*$/: 21 ]

Total 21 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW (score: 1)
Author: Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 04:09:47 +0000
The ARRL Contest Update for February 25 reports that A team of operators mounted the first totally remote <http://www.arrl.org/news/no-one-in-the-shack-as-station-logs-4200-contacts-in-arrl-dx-cw-con
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-02/msg00117.html (7,971 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW (score: 1)
Author: John Laney <k4bai@att.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:49:33 -0500
I am afraid that /R and /IM are not permitted by FCC rules because the /R prefix belongs to Russia and the /IM prefix belongs to Italy. Of course the very popular /M and /P calls are also not permitt
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-02/msg00118.html (7,835 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW (score: 1)
Author: <k2qmf@juno.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:53:23 -0500
Why are we splitting hairs here??? It seems to me that this is the wave of the future considering the rapid progress in the state of the art!! Go with the flow or not! it's all up to you... Just don'
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-02/msg00119.html (10,486 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW (score: 1)
Author: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:08:54 -0600 (CST)
I could spend paragraphs pointing out where Paul's argument is twisting the meaning and intent of the rules, as I'm sure many others can as well. And we will end up going down the same "slippery slop
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-02/msg00120.html (10,582 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 14:50:35 -0700
Took you 3 days and this is hte best you could come up with Paul...........Same story. Mike W0MU The ARRL Contest Update for February 25 reports that A team of operators mounted the first totally rem
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-02/msg00121.html (9,675 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW (score: 1)
Author: Oliver Dröse <droese@necg.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:37:59 +0100
Give us a seperate category for remote ops. Then Paul will finally be happy and K4VV would have won their category, too. Seems like a WIN-WIN situation for everybody, doesn't it? ;-) 73, Olli - DH8BQ
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-02/msg00122.html (11,476 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:03:24 -0800
How in the world do you come up with that? It's simply a multi-multi contest station, like hundreds of others around the world, but with the operators NOT in the same room. No different from K3LR, W3
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-02/msg00125.html (9,905 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 18:31:51 -0700
If it involves anything to do with the internet and contesting Paul will never be happy. Come on over to Topband where we are having the same old tired conversation over there too.. Oh how great thin
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-02/msg00128.html (12,577 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW (score: 1)
Author: <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:55:56 -0500
I am not seeing any rule violations. They did not solicit contacts by emailing or texting, the internet connection was just a long speaker and keyer wire. If all transmitting and receiving antennas a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-02/msg00129.html (10,178 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW (score: 1)
Author: "Milt -- N5IA" <n5ia@zia-connection.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 20:09:26 -0700
Ron, I can see it now. Being the remote controlled stations are at a disadvantage due to Internet latency, and will be in their separate category, I can see it already that a non-remote station will
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-02/msg00130.html (9,353 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW (score: 1)
Author: Jan Erik Holm <sm2ekm@bdtv.se>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:10:35 +0100
No that is not correct. These days the correct way is to put the country designator before the call sign i e R/K4BAI or IM/K4BAI or PJ4/K4BAI. After the call sign you put information about for exampl
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-02/msg00136.html (9,279 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:18:53 -0500
Actually, the reciprocal agreement between the US and Canada requires you to sign N1UR/VE2 not VE2/N1UR. Ed N1UR _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@con
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-02/msg00141.html (8,456 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW (score: 1)
Author: Gerry Hull <gerry@yccc.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:04:46 -0500
Actually, not so Ed, VE1/W1VE or W1/VE1RM is the accepted international standard. In the US and Canada, no authority is going to get bent out of shape if you do it the other way around. Of course, I
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-02/msg00150.html (9,237 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW (score: 1)
Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:03:12 -0500
At one time the FCC requirement was supposedly VE1RM/W1 but someone cited the regs a while back saying that is no longer the required form. Unfortunately, I don't recall where that discussion took pl
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-02/msg00152.html (10,194 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:47:25 -0500
The following is taken directly from the Canadian Reciprocal Agreement with US amateurs. There is no need for paperwork or other formalities when exchanging visits between Canada and the United State
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-02/msg00153.html (10,011 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW (score: 1)
Author: Ken Low <kenke3x@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:11:07 -0500
Hi Gerry - It depends on the country. In Switzerland I was HB9/KE3X. 73! Ken _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-02/msg00159.html (10,556 bytes)

17. Re: [CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith N4ZR <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:40:27 -0500
30 or so years ago, that was the format, and I believe it is still specified in the reciprocal agreement between the US and Canada, but the rest of the world has moved on. 73, Pete N4ZR Check out the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-02/msg00160.html (11,367 bytes)

18. Re: [CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW (score: 1)
Author: Rudy Bakalov via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:03:23 +0000 (UTC)
Yes, Ed is 100% correct. Under the terms of the US-Canada agreement, visitor must identify using his or her call sign followed by a call area suffix, e.g. VE3ABC/W9 or N1ABC/VE3. http://www.rac.ca/en
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-02/msg00161.html (10,545 bytes)

19. Re: [CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ferch <ve3iay@storm.ca>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:59:01 -0500
Actually, not so Gerry. Perhaps the authorities might not get bent out of shape if you used the standard international order, but the letter of the law is clear in both countries. For reciprocal oper
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-02/msg00162.html (10,417 bytes)

20. Re: [CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW (score: 1)
Author: "LB3RE \\\"RAG\\\" Stein-Roar Brobakken" <post@lb3re.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 21:27:24 +0100
I dont think all country follow reciprocal  and correct use of prefix. I mean CEPT have prefix in front of callsign, and reciprocal should have callsign at the end.  But use of Remote is totally forb
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-02/msg00163.html (11,791 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu