Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+FT4\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+FT4\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [VHFcontesting] FT4 (score: 1): Author: Stu <stu@stu2labs.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:25:26 -0400; I haven't posted our score to 3830, yet, but wanted to get these questions out to the group this morning. What happened to FT4? We didn't hear any activity at W4IY on Flagpole Knob. (FM08) Since our; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2019-09/msg00033.html (8,144 bytes)
2. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT4 (score: 1): Author: Ed Parish <k1ep@mgef.org>; Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:54:11 -0400; We (W2SZ) didn't see any FT4 at all on 6M and made 2 Qs on FT4 on 2M. Switching between WSJT and SSB/CW on 6M was much easier this contest. In June on 6M I used two radios and two computers. This was; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2019-09/msg00034.html (8,862 bytes)
3. [VHFcontesting] FT4 (score: 1): Author: Mark Spencer <mark@alignedsolutions.com>; Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:24:23 -0700; Hi I am curious to hear from anyone who used FT4 during the CQ VHF contest. I don't recall seeing any activity on the 50 MHz FT4 frequency on my band scope when I was in CO80 on Saturday, but I may h; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2020-07/msg00062.html (7,789 bytes)
4. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT4 (score: 1): Author: Chuck Dietz <w5prchuck@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:55:38 -0500; My claimed score from EL29: Band Mode QSOs Pts Grd Pt/Q 50 FT4 9 9 7 1.0 50 FT8 267 267 132 1.0 50 USB 50 50 24 1.0 Total Both 326 326 163 1.0 Score: 53,138 Chuck W5PR _______________________________; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2020-07/msg00063.html (7,942 bytes)
5. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT4 (score: 1): Author: Randy Wing via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>; Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:58:11 +0000 (UTC); I made one FT4 contact during the CQ VHF contest. However I made dozens during the June VHF contest. Randy, N0LD, EM15JI Oklahoma City, OK Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 12:; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2020-07/msg00064.html (8,512 bytes)
6. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT4 (score: 1): Author: STEPHEN TRIPP <stephen.tripp@snet.net>; Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 19:41:25 +0000 (UTC); Hi Mark,I too can see both 313 and 318 on my panadapter but saw very little activity on FT4 while FT8 was very busy. I thought FT4 was designed more for contesting with fasterturn around time yet fe; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2020-07/msg00065.html (8,209 bytes)
7. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT4 (score: 1): Author: Alex <alex@kr1st.com>; Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 16:33:05 -0400; Hi Mark, I was on only a very limited amount of time but I worked 30 FT4 stations vs 78 on FT8 on 6m. Of course I'm on the other side of NA so things may be different here. Like you, I constantly kee; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2020-07/msg00066.html (8,958 bytes)
8. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT4 (score: 1): Author: Gregory Winters <greg_winters@hotmail.com>; Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 01:43:23 +0000; Hi Mark, et al, I called and monitored FT4 on 6m here in CN85 for awhile and heard none. Checking PSKReporter I saw very few FT4 reporting stations on 6m, compared to FT8. After a couple of hours of; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2020-07/msg00067.html (10,863 bytes)
9. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT4 (score: 1): Author: Arliss <w7xu@w7xu.com>; Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 23:48:35 -0500; I operated part-time during the CQ contest and found conditions to be reasonably good on 6m at the start of the contest. The mode distribution for my 6m QSOs was: SSB -- 135 QSOs CW -- 6 MSK144 - 13; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2020-07/msg00068.html (8,289 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]