Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+State\s+QSO\s+parties\s+and\s+CW\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (score: 1)
Author: John Geiger <n5ten@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
The Florida QSO party this past weekend reminded me of something I have observed for the past few years. With the exception of maybe the California QSO party, there seems to be much more CW than SSB
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00516.html (7,649 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (score: 1)
Author: "Richard DiDonna NN3W" <nn3w@cox.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:55:51 -0400
SSB might be easier to send, but a mobile with a compromise antenna and low power is going to make a LOT more QSOs on CW. You can't work them if you can't hear them.... 73 Rich NN3W _________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00520.html (9,360 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (score: 1)
Author: Jimk8mr@aol.com
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:06:07 EDT
I am not complaining as I like CW contests and just tolerate SSB contests, but why is this? It seems that SSB would be easier to run while mobile. SSB is much harder to run while mobile. A moderately
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00522.html (8,616 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (score: 1)
Author: "Hal Offutt" <hal@japancorporateresearch.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:23:31 -0400
John, It's just a whole lot easier to hold a frequency with an S-4 signal on CW than on SSB. I don't think the extra points for CW contacts are the determining factor. Whether I'm moving or operating
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00523.html (10,027 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (score: 1)
Author: Tim Gardner <n9lf@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
[snip] [snip] The point differential can make a significant difference in at least some QSO Parties.  For the Indiana QSO Party, multipliers are awarded by mode, so it is critical to operate both SS
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00524.html (8,952 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (score: 1)
Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:45:07 -0400
Relative to the PAQSO party, the doubled points are an attractant, if only because it can make a difference to winning that county or section, etc. Our official policy is to encourage people to engag
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00527.html (8,672 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (score: 1)
Author: Zack Widup <w9sz@prairienet.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:02:52 -0500 (CDT)
It certainly would for me! That's also why I like to work CW on Field Day. 73, Zack W9SZ _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00545.html (9,152 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (score: 1)
Author: aldewey@aol.com
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:23:47 -0400
This is something we looked at long and hard for the Minnesota QSO Party.? Every year there are cries to remove the 2 pt vs 1 pt rule for CW and SSB.? We are not convinced that this would make much d
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00549.html (10,078 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (score: 1)
Author: "W4ZW" <w4zw@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:29:46 -0400
Having just finished the FQP as a mobile, I can tell you that it's a lot easier to actually run on CW than on SSB, using low power and mobile antennas. In the first phase of my mobile itinerary, I w
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00550.html (9,000 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (score: 1)
Author: "Dan Kovatch" <w8car@buckeye-express.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:43:14 -0400
I think the extra point is a factor but CW is the prefered mode to snag mobiles in QSO parties because of the condx. Much easier to work the roving mobiles on Cw than on SSB plus they tend to work CW
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00556.html (10,294 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (score: 1)
Author: "Dennis McAlpine" <dbmcalpine@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:55:18 -0400
I recently completed a fairly extensive analysis of the rules and results for state QSO Parties and was interested to see that, overall, about half of the top score QSOs were on cw and half on SSB. B
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00558.html (10,961 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (score: 1)
Author: "doug smith" <dougw9wi@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:54:01 -0500
I would suggest that for an experienced CW operator, working CW mobile in motion is *safer* than working phone. The Morse key can safely sit on the passenger seat, where it doesn't obstruct your visi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00561.html (9,549 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (score: 1)
Author: Dale Putnam <daleputnam@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:13:32 -0600
Hi Dennis and all, I agree, almost. In all the contests that I enter, by goal or by fun, it is to compare my score, with..... are you ready..? MY score. And if someone wants to compare theirs to mine
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00566.html (13,996 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (score: 1)
Author: "K0HB " <k-zero-hb@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:59:47 -0500
OK, I'll bite. What determines whether a mode is "worthy"? Beep beep, de Hans, K0HB -- _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00581.html (8,922 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (score: 1)
Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 08:16:04 -0400
Some things in life are wonderful, like a good pale ale and CW Morse. But sometimes it is an acquired taste. That very first sip of beer can be very bitter, and Morse does have a learning curve. Some
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-05/msg00007.html (7,909 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 17:47:47 -0400
I'm not sure I'd agree with that John. It might depend on the contest involved. While it varies, I'd say that on average, the Pa QSO Party is about a 50/50 mix of phone and CW, with a sprinkling of d
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-05/msg00024.html (10,681 bytes)

17. Re: [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (score: 1)
Author: "ku8e" <ku8e@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 19:31:02 -0400
Speaking for many of us who go rovering in state QSO parties there are many reasons that CW is the preferred mode of operation. 1) In most State QSO parties you get more points for CW than SSB contac
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-05/msg00050.html (8,129 bytes)

18. Re: [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (score: 1)
Author: "Eric Hilding" <b38@hilding.com>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 01:16:59 -0700
reasons that CW is the preferred mode of operation. <snip> I'll add #4: CW runs circles around SSB when signals are weak (or heavy mobile QSB) and propagation is poor. CW Rules!!! FWIW & 73. Rick, K
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-05/msg00075.html (7,491 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu