Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Run\s+rate\s+vs\.\s+S\&P\s+rate\s+RTTY\s+Roundup\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Run rate vs. S&P rate RTTY Roundup (score: 1)
Author: Barry Jacobson <bdj@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:19:38 -0500
Hi, sorry for late post, but originally posted elsewhere and was told appropriate for this list which I just joined. Glad to meet you guys. Due to family obligations during RTTY Roundup only had two
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-01/msg00048.html (7,271 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Run rate vs. S&P rate RTTY Roundup (score: 1)
Author: <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 17:09:37 -0500
An 80m dipole is a poor antenna on 20m and 40m so you were probably just not loud enough when CQing to be noticed and keep the frequency clear. John KK9A Hi, sorry for late post, but originally poste
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-01/msg00049.html (7,300 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Run rate vs. S&P rate RTTY Roundup (score: 1)
Author: Art Boyars <artboyars@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 19:50:45 -0500
KK9A knows a lot more than I do, but I don't think "poor antenna" is the main factor in this case. Lots of us get by with poor antennas. I run 100W to a 200-ft-long dipole, and I can run IF I pick my
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-01/msg00050.html (10,883 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Run rate vs. S&P rate RTTY Roundup (score: 1)
Author: Barry Jacobson <bdj@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 20:05:55 -0500
Hi John, it is possible but I used same setup a week later in NAQP CW and got more business than I could handle. Also, got good unsolicited signal report from N2IC in New Mexico. I check my signal st
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-01/msg00051.html (9,260 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Run rate vs. S&P rate RTTY Roundup (score: 1)
Author: Barry Jacobson <bdj@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 21:40:11 -0500
Thanks very much, Art, for the detailed response. Hope to work you in NAQP SSB. My hearing is poor and SSB has always been tougher for me than CW, but hope to manage. 73, Barry WA2VIU -- Barry Jacobs
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-01/msg00053.html (12,011 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Run rate vs. S&P rate RTTY Roundup (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 23:16:25 -0800
On 1/19/2023 4:50 PM, Art Boyars wrote: KK9A knows a lot more than I do, but I don't think "poor antenna" is the main factor in this case. Lots of us get by with poor antennas. I run 100W to a 200-ft
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-01/msg00054.html (9,085 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Run rate vs. S&P rate RTTY Roundup (score: 1)
Author: Barry Jacobson <bdj@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 10:04:12 -0500
Hi Jim, I use the MFJ989D tuner which is quite capable and gets me 1:1 on all bands including 160 where the antenna is too short. It is fed with ladder line all the way from back of tuner to antenna.
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-01/msg00056.html (10,365 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Run rate vs. S&P rate RTTY Roundup (score: 1)
Author: Barry Jacobson <bdj@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 12:56:46 -0500
I found the older RBN records from RTTY Roundup on 20 and 40m. The signal doesn't seem too bad. Barry WA2VIU -- Barry Jacobson WA2VIU bdj@alum.mit.edu @bdj_phd _______________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-01/msg00057.html (11,072 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu