Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+144\.200\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+144\.200\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [VHFcontesting] 144.200 (score: 1): Author: Alex <extraham@earthlink.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:05:31 -0400 (GMT-04:00); Changed digest subject line. I would love to introduce some of these folks on .52 FM to contesting during a contesting weekend when there's actually some activity. It's amazing how many people in my; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00202.html (7,946 bytes)
2. Re: [VHFcontesting] 144.200 (score: 1): Author: "Bruce Richardson" <w9fz@w9fz.com>; Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:51:07 -0500; First, I'm glad to see the discussion--because I think progress can be made just from discussion. While Jim and the VUAC have been vague about clearly outlining the "problem" with 144.200, that may b; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00207.html (9,814 bytes)
3. Re: [VHFcontesting] 144.200 (score: 1): Author: "GeorgeF." <av8tor@flash.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:12:58 -0400; George W1LVL is right, if we don't use .200 then come contest time we'll have very few if any log entries. Alex, we have the same problem here in EL99 with FM repeater activity, there is NONE! 2mtr; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00210.html (8,149 bytes)
4. Re: [VHFcontesting] 144.200 (score: 1): Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>; Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:23:16 -0600; Pre-self-spotting. :-) Why then not allow fully-internet connected and digipeated APRS then? (Just stirring THAT pot.) At least that's ham radio driven, even if it eventually ends up on the Net. I st; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00214.html (16,011 bytes)
5. Re: [VHFcontesting] 144.200 (score: 1): Author: J999w@aol.com; Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:36:38 EDT; << Why then not allow fully-internet connected and digipeated APRS then? >> You mean like the increasingly popular HSMS where you can't even make a contact unless you're connected to the internet?? J; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00217.html (7,350 bytes)
6. Re: [VHFcontesting] 144.200 (score: 1): Author: Eric Watkins <shelshok@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:47:11 -0600; The point here wasn't to use APRS as a method of making a QSO for a point. Rather to use APRS as a way that base stations can track rovers, a practice currently "out of line" with contest rule intent; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00218.html (8,055 bytes)
7. Re: [VHFcontesting] 144.200 (score: 1): Author: Radiosporting Fan <radiosporting@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:20:05 -0700 (PDT); Not at all. This is fully approved by the ARRL. Digi is relaying, which makes you "assisted" (a category that doesn't exist in the ARRL rules for VHF contests). The careful rover will run high power; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00220.html (8,274 bytes)
8. Re: [VHFcontesting] 144.200 (score: 1): Author: Jim Smith <jimsmith@shaw.ca>; Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 02:45:27 -0700; Alex, Some time ago I tried to set up an FM Simplex mini-contest for our club members, most of whom know very little about ham radio outside the world of repeaters and Field Day. It piggy-backed on t; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-07/msg00003.html (8,204 bytes)
9. Re: [VHFcontesting] 144.200 (score: 1): Author: J999w@aol.com; Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 10:32:57 EDT; << The Milwaukee Club (MRAC) tried a similar thing at the same time I was doing this. You can find the rules for their FM Simplex contest (which are much better developed than mine) at http://www.qsl; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-07/msg00004.html (6,958 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]