Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+FT8\s+vs\s+FT4\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+FT8\s+vs\s+FT4\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [VHFcontesting] FT8 vs FT4 (score: 1): Author: Herb Krumich via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 00:17:25 +0000 (UTC); Last evening in the contest I was amazed to see how many ops had switched to FT4I ran stations for 3 hoursSo tonight I'm listening on 313 and it's packedNothing on the FT4 freqWhen will people start; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2022-06/msg00051.html (6,873 bytes)
2. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 vs FT4 (score: 1): Author: Buddy Morgan via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 01:31:48 +0000 (UTC); I made a few FT4 contacts. There were times that 50.313 looked like 20M. The FT4 frequency was much less crowded. I made one contact on 50.323 - the alternate 6M FT8 frequency. When the waterfall is; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2022-06/msg00052.html (7,941 bytes)
3. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 vs FT4 (score: 1): Author: John Geiger <af5cc2@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 02:18:06 +0000; Herb, Your experience was the opposite of mine. I tuned over to 50.318 quite a few times and found very little activity. I think I made 1 or 2 FT4 QSOs in the contest. Everything else was on FT8 wher; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2022-06/msg00054.html (8,183 bytes)
4. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 vs FT4 (score: 1): Author: Dave <kdcarlso@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 16:31:17 -0400; It was pretty late Sunday before people woke up. I tried many times without success and then later Sunday it just lit up. For a while it may have been too crowded. I would think that it would be pref; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2022-06/msg00055.html (9,342 bytes)
5. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 vs FT4 (score: 1): Author: Ed Lemley <res510cue@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 18:28:56 -0400; Someone was broadcasting CQ FT4 50318 on FT-8 Sunday evening. Thats why I switched. Made a bunch of QSO there before the end of the contest. Ed K4XXX -- Ed ___________________________________________; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2022-06/msg00057.html (10,268 bytes)
6. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 vs FT4 (score: 1): Author: Ed K1EP <k1ep.list@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 19:30:31 -0400; I found .313 rather crowded at times. I saw some activity on .323, but I did try FT4. I was surprised at how much activity there was there compared to previous contests. I think I had about 100Qs on; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2022-06/msg00058.html (9,329 bytes)
7. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 vs FT4 (score: 1): Author: alex@kr1st.com; Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 20:46:42 -0400; I just checked my 2020 log and found that I worked 179 Q's on FT4 compared to "only" 92 this time around. I'm not sure what the significance of that is though. It's just a single data point. 73, --Al; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2022-06/msg00059.html (8,162 bytes)
8. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 vs FT4 (score: 1): Author: "Tom Holmes" <tholmes@woh.rr.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 21:07:49 -0400; Possibly due the presence of many EU stations on the FT8 segment Sunday afternoon? Tom Holmes, N8ZM --Original Message-- From: VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting-bounces+tholmes=woh.rr.com@contesting.com>; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2022-06/msg00061.html (8,999 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]