Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Packet\s+debate\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Packet debate (score: 1)
Author: Tree <tree@kkn.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:33:43 -0700
Glad to see we finally have some traction on finally resolving the long running assisted versus un-assisted debate. Okay - tongue back out of my cheek. I have a very concrete example of the differenc
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00203.html (9,253 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet debate (score: 1)
Author: "Bill Parry" <BPARRY@RGV.RR.COM>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:02:10 -0500
It seems to me that we are talking about two very similar issues. Packet involves the use of stations in other locations letting us know about stations that we might want to work. Having remote recei
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00227.html (13,153 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet debate (score: 1)
Author: Tree <tree@kkn.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:45:22 -0700
It is rather interesting to compare the two cases: 1. Remote receiver where the audio comes back to the operator and he listens to it. 2. Remote receiver where some OTHER operator listens to the data
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00228.html (11,728 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet debate (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:11:01 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- There's a big difference: A packet spot from a remote station only provides call and frequency info. A remote receiver, on the other hand, allows you to actually
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00233.html (7,514 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet debate (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:30:17 -0700
As a final point - if it is illegal for me to use a remote receiver - why would it be okay for me to get information from remote receivers that have people in front of them? One thing I have never un
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00243.html (7,419 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet debate (score: 1)
Author: Doug Smith <w9wi@w9wi.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:16:09 -0500
Yep, and this is why I think there's no need to restrict use of remote receivers. A rule restricting all transmitters operating on the contest bands to a 500m circle would IMHO be adequate. -- Doug S
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00246.html (7,678 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet debate (score: 1)
Author: Ed K1EP <k1ep.list@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 10:28:45 -0400
So, I have a TX with an indoor antenna here in W1-land along with a remote RX in VK-land. A VK station has a TX in VK with a remote RX here in W1-land. No need to restrict remote receivers?? _______
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00247.html (8,373 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet debate (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:58:09 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- Agreed, but I wonder about the exception some contests have about the property limits of the station owner. Is the owner of Texas' King Ranch a ham? :-) Bill W6W
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00250.html (8,477 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet debate (score: 1)
Author: Jimk8mr@aol.com
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:59:30 EDT
If you haven't noticed the bitching about SO2R operation, just wait until SO2L (Locations) hits the fan. For contests to succeed, the average to reasonably good guy has to think he is at least in the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00251.html (8,784 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet debate (score: 1)
Author: Doug Smith <w9wi@w9wi.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:42:57 -0500
OK, so you turn on your remote receiver in Australia, and hear YB0XYZ blasting in on 7015KHz. So you turn on your transmitter - 100w and indoor antenna in New England - and call the YB0. Really think
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00255.html (8,555 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet debate (score: 1)
Author: DL8MBS <prickler.schneider@t-online.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:36:48 +0100
Two east coast stations running full legal power to fullsize verticals on 80m, one using a beverage for receive, the other a remote RX in DL with good connection - who will have more phone qsos with
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00259.html (9,135 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet debate (score: 1)
Author: Barry <w2up@mindspring.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:44:31 +0000
Take a more likely scenario. The YB scenario is silly. I'm on 80m calling CQ contest with my KW and sloper array. My (local) S-meter is hovering around S-9 with power line noise, QRM from other guys
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00261.html (9,670 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu