Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

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

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Why 160m in SS? (score: 1)
Author: "Dale Martin" <kg5u@hal-pc.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:47:32 -0600
Why is there a 160m band category (?) in SS CW/SSB? In looking over the 3830 band summary for 2005 SS CW, out of 423 submitted reports, there's only one station reporting making as many as 1 QSO on 1
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00445.html (6,725 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why 160m in SS? (score: 1)
Author: "Nat Heatwole" <nat@ajheatwole.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:45:19 -0500
It was a very different story for SS SSB this year. Look at all of those QSOs on 160m: http://lists.contesting.com/archives/html/3830/2005-11/msg01389.html Although I've never seen a 3830 score repor
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00448.html (8,054 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why 160m in SS? (score: 1)
Author: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:54:12 EST
Others may go there, but in FL....no way. If I have to go on 160, it's time to shut it down and save the operating time for the next morning. Bill K4XS _______________________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00453.html (7,072 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why 160m in SS? (score: 1)
Author: "Richard DiDonna NN3W" <NN3W@prodigy.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:22:58 -0500
Yah, I know that Jeff N8II spent a little bit of time up on 160. I haven't had a chance to talk to him about it, but it kinda surprised me. In fact, N4RV and I were talking about 160 during one of my
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00457.html (9,431 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why 160m in SS? (score: 1)
Author: Lee Hiers <lee.hiers@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:15:25 -0500
Wasn't it K5ZD that said (regarding SS) "if I'm on 160, I'm losing"? -- Lee Hiers, AA4GA "Have Dobro Will Travel" _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@co
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00460.html (7,413 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why 160m in SS? (score: 1)
Author: Ed K1EP <k1ep.list@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 07:38:50 -0500
I have asked that question for a number of years. Then someone told me, wait til the bottom of the cycle, then you will see some 160 SS. I once searched the entire ARRL online database for all the av
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00470.html (9,600 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why 160m in SS? (score: 1)
Author: "Steve.Root@culligan.com" <steve.root@culligan4water.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:59:43 +0000
If you lived up here you'd probably feel the same way about 10 and 15 meters too :))) Everybody have a great Holiday season and see you all in the next one. 73 Steve K0SR ___________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00471.html (8,016 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why 160m in SS? (score: 1)
Author: Doug Smith W9WI <w9wi@earthlink.net>
Date: 20 Dec 2005 08:05:23 -0600
To go in the other direction... what about VHF? I'm probably missing something, but I don't see anything in the SS rules that prevents the use of amateur frequencies above 30MHz. I definitely recall
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00474.html (8,291 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why 160m in SS? (score: 1)
Author: "Dale L Martin" <kg5u@hal-pc.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:41:14 -0600
I said, I'll operate Hi, Ed. That's pretty cool. I noticed there were a lot more QSO's made duirng SS SSB; nothing in the three-digit range, but at least something and most of it east of the Mississi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00482.html (8,881 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why 160m in SS? (score: 1)
Author: Ed K1EP <k1ep.list@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:33:50 -0500
. Object: For stations in the United States and Canada (including territories and possessions) to exchange QSO information with as many other US and Canadian stations as possible on 160, 80, 40, 20,
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00486.html (9,433 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why 160m in SS? (score: 1)
Author: "Randy Thompson" <k5zd@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:19:34 -0000
That comment was referring to working stations in WPX! But, you could make a similar remark for SS. Although in SS Phone, where I was QRP, I worked a number of stations on 160. Randy, K5ZD __________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00491.html (9,131 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why 160m in SS? (score: 1)
Author: Zack Widup <w9sz@prairienet.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:00:52 -0600 (CST)
Exactly so! We don't want SS to turn into a VHF contest. BTW the VHF SS is only a month away. I hope to drag all my bands to a hilltop again. I'll probably freeze my tuchis but it will be fun. :) 73,
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00496.html (9,312 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why 160m in SS? (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:57:19 -0500
There's a few people who work several Qs on this band. W4AN used to say, "if you are working 160m in SS, you are losing." Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net Quote: "Not within a thousa
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00535.html (8,817 bytes)

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