Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Skimmer\s+had\s+finally\s+arrived\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Skimmer had finally arrived (score: 1)
Author: "Edward Sawyer" <SawyerEd@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 07:08:44 -0500
For the first time, I can say, that skimmer is finally making a noticeable impact out there. As likely the most active Vermont station out there this weekend, I was a needed "mult" for most. I notice
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-02/msg00167.html (8,255 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer had finally arrived (score: 1)
Author: Timothy Coker <n6win73@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 07:10:29 -0800
I found the same domestic Unlimited's and Multis in the "quick hit group". The big multi's and K6LL come to mind, others too that I will remember after my first cup of coffee this morning. I learned
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-02/msg00178.html (10,669 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer had finally arrived (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:48:28 -0800 (PST)
That's exactly what I experimented with -- "Erase'n'Pounce". My plan for ARRL DX was to operate off and on and then submit a checklog. This freed me up to play around (staying within the rules of cou
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-02/msg00183.html (8,853 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer had finally arrived (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith N4ZR <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:30:58 -0500
Thanks, all, for the kind words. We did have a little trouble with one of our Telnet servers late Saturday morning, but some quick CPR by Dave, KM3T got it running again. The spot volume was nothing
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-02/msg00184.html (9,065 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer had finally arrived (score: 1)
Author: "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m73@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:05:31 -0500
As W9RE pointed out, one of the problems with Skimmer is that more stations are zero-beat in your pileup, making it more difficult to separate the signals. It's generally worse when a lot of lower-po
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-02/msg00187.html (10,920 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer had finally arrived (score: 1)
Author: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:19:04 -0600 (CST)
Pete, I don't know if it was because of Skimmer spots, or increased use of Packet, or what... But I did observe, especially on Sunday, that if there was a decent pileup on a station, especially if we
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-02/msg00188.html (10,323 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer had finally arrived (score: 1)
Author: Keith Thomas <kdtbikes@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:56:28 -0800 (PST)
I play around in contests and had a good time in the one this past weekend. I don&#39;t use skimmer, but with my FT-2000 it is easy to zerobeat using the visual indicator. I did hear some of the hord
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-02/msg00192.html (8,127 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer had finally arrived (score: 1)
Author: Jimk8mr@aol.com
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:52:28 -0500 (EST)
Keith, If there is no major pileup it is better to zero beat. Even if there are several people calling, one is likely to be louder, faster, or not on the exact frequency of other callers, and the CQi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-02/msg00198.html (9,152 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer had finally arrived (score: 1)
Author: Guy Molinari <guy_molinari@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:58:55 +0000
Perhaps we need a new Q signal. If QNZ means please zero beat my QRG then how about adding QTK? This translates to will you knuckleheads please spread out. ;-) 73, Guy N7ZG __________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-02/msg00199.html (7,973 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer had finally arrived (score: 1)
Author: "Robert Brandon" <rb@austin.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:43:18 -0600
I like the suggestion to just turn on a little XIT before you start clicking on spots. The bigger the pileup, the more offset I'll use. Many of the best ops will run pretty wide filters and/or will t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-02/msg00202.html (9,221 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer had finally arrived (score: 1)
Author: "Collins, Graham" <CollinG@navcanada.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:10:44 -0500
An interesting discussion. I operate primarily QRP power and when operating CW many of the suggestions others have made are what I use to try and be heard - zero beating, if that doesn't work then pl
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-02/msg00203.html (11,053 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer had finally arrived (score: 1)
Author: "Jeff Blaine" <jeff@ac0c.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:38:10 -0600
Keith, I worked the Nigerian station in the ARRL DX CW contest last week. He had a gigantic pileup. I don't have a monster signal - but given the amount of guys who were zero beating on him, I imagin
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-02/msg00205.html (12,360 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer had finally arrived (score: 1)
Author: Mark Bailey <kd4d@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:30:39 -0500
One very effective trick is to find the station that the DX stations is working and match that station's CW speed and frequency. :-) 73, Mark, KD4D _______________________________________________ CQ-
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-02/msg00206.html (13,927 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer had finally arrived (score: 1)
Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:03:12 -0500
Thanks Jeff. We will all do that from now on. :-) _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-con
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-02/msg00210.html (9,285 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu