Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+NAQP\s+SSB\s+160m\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] NAQP SSB 160m (score: 1)
Author: Roger Parsons <ve3zi@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:36:02 +0000 (GMT)
Some of you will know I am a contester, although almost exclusively on CW. I am also a 160m DXer. I was very disappointed last evening to hear many NAQP stations operating on SSB at well below 1840kH
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00215.html (7,366 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP SSB 160m (score: 1)
Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 10:03:47 -0700
I missed the event but my slantical is cut for 1830 and the SWR curve is pretty small. I am sure many others are in the same boat. I thought there were a bunch of nets above 1900. Was there something
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00216.html (9,187 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP SSB 160m (score: 1)
Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 09:14:57 -0800
I agree, Roger. I wasn't in the contest, but I did hand out some 160 QSOs near the end of the NAQP. I made it a point not to call anyone who was CQing below 1840 KHz. 73 Mike W4EF.................. S
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00217.html (8,844 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP SSB 160m (score: 1)
Author: "Eric Hilding" <dx35@hilding.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 09:34:13 -0800
I agree. 73... Rick, K6VVA P.S. Confession: It appears I inadvertently made 3 Q's in that zone last night ;-( _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contes
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00219.html (7,281 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP SSB 160m (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:11:00 -0500
ve3zi@yahoo.com wrote: "I understand and accept that during major international contests the whole of the band will be used for SSB, but do feel that this contest could, and should, be operated in ac
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00220.html (8,543 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP SSB 160m (score: 1)
Author: "John Vickers" <wa4tt@nlamerica.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:36:14 -0500
Unless that intense activity is right on top of the VU7 I've been trying to work all week ! There was also a CW contest going on down there. Antenna bandwidth can be handled in a number of ways-- unl
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00221.html (8,016 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP SSB 160m (score: 1)
Author: "Mark Steven Williams" <k9gx@n4gn.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:20:17 -0000
The "band plan" is a SUGGESTION. C'mon guys. The NAQP power limit is 100 watts. Very few of us have much more than wire antennas on 160. The contest runs 12 hours. I seriously doubt most of us operat
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00223.html (11,190 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP SSB 160m (score: 1)
Author: "ku8e" <ku8e@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 16:11:25 -0500
Roger, From what I observed for the most part the band plan was being followed on 160. I only heard a few stations CQing below 1840. BTW.. the worst two offenders that I heard were a couple of well k
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00224.html (7,696 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP SSB 160m (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:20:15 -0500
Roger, I think you're wasting your breath, electronically speaking, on this one. There is sadly a segment of contesters who decline to recognize band plans. They seem to have the mindset of "if it's
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00229.html (9,880 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP SSB 160m (score: 1)
Author: "Milt, N5IA" <n5ia@zia-connection.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:50:16 -0700
I was not in the contest but listened across the band for a couple of hours. I noticed the same thing Jeff mentions. These two stations were running them hot and heavy, west coast to east coast for a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00230.html (8,480 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP SSB 160m (score: 1)
Author: "Yuri VE3DZ" <ve3dz@rigexpert.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 09:43:38 -0500
Whew... Then it was not me... I was on just a part time. Not that I am considering myself not a "famous VE3 contester" though... 73 Yuri VE3DZ hours. _______________________________________________ C
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00239.html (8,589 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP SSB 160m (score: 1)
Author: Nick Lekic <ve3ey@rogers.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 09:28:47 -0800 (PST)
I was having a semi decent run in NAQP between 02Z and 05Z but I was stuck on 1853 all the time. On the less serious note, I am sure CW hordes will be back next weekend with vengeance to stick in the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00251.html (9,401 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP SSB 160m (score: 1)
Author: Roger Parsons <ve3zi@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:11:57 +0000 (GMT)
I thank everybody for their responses to my post. The majority consensus appears to be that the band plan should be respected for domestic contests! It would be nice if this were to be written into t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00254.html (9,599 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu