Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+\[nmvhf\]\s+2019\s+January\s+VHF\s+Contest\s+Results\s+on\s+Line\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+\[nmvhf\]\s+2019\s+January\s+VHF\s+Contest\s+Results\s+on\s+Line\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [VHFcontesting] [nmvhf] 2019 January VHF Contest Results on Line (score: 1): Author: Mike H <mph@sportscliche.com>; Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 22:38:25 -0600; Good writeup, but Im not at all pessimistic. Give it time. 2m will again be the band of choice in January VHF once people realize they can use FT8 there, specifically the national calling frequency o; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2019-06/msg00074.html (9,381 bytes)
2. Re: [VHFcontesting] [nmvhf] 2019 January VHF Contest Results on Line (score: 1): Author: John Kludt <johnnykludt@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 07:15:13 -0400; Mike, All interesting view points. I do wonder if we are asking the wrong question, however. In our VHF contesting group we have been discussing the "6m problem" for some time now beginning long befo; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2019-06/msg00075.html (11,854 bytes)
3. Re: [VHFcontesting] [nmvhf] 2019 January VHF Contest Results on Line (score: 1): Author: Chris Lumens <chris@lumensoutdoors.org>; Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:51:58 -0400; I have been wondering for a while where the FT8 VHF contest ops are coming from and if perhaps some of the community's concern is overblown. I see two possibilities: * Casual ops who have that HF+6; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2019-06/msg00076.html (9,296 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]