Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+ARRL\s+160\s+conditions\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+ARRL\s+160\s+conditions\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: ARRL 160 Conditions (score: 1): Author: W2RU - Bud Hippisley <W2RU@frontiernet.net>; Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 04:50:02 +0000; Most unexpected QSO for me so far in the ARRL 160: Earlier this evening, at 2340Z, K6NR in Orange section answered my CQ. He had a good signal, too -- solid 569 copy here in upstate NY on my shunt-fe; /archives//html/Topband/2005-12/msg00018.html (6,850 bytes)
2. Topband: ARRL 160 conditions (score: 1): Author: Brian_ve7jkz <ve7jkz@telus.net>; Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 09:02:01 -0800; Very disappointing indeed, although always nice to work the east coast, ME, WNY, VA, MAR (PEI) etc from the wet coast. And CE3 was a nice one. For the propagation experts out there did the poor condi; /archives//html/Topband/2011-12/msg00042.html (7,845 bytes)
3. Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions (score: 1): Author: "Wayne Mills" <n7ng@bresnan.net>; Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 10:24:36 -0700; "Bang on zero beat" IS a problem. I am noticing more and more of that as (I guess) more and more guys rely on SPOTTING SOFTWARE! Arrrrgh! It doesn't make any sense to call exactly zero beat. As I men; /archives//html/Topband/2011-12/msg00045.html (9,085 bytes)
4. Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions (score: 1): Author: Roger D Johnson <n1rj@roadrunner.com>; Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 12:36:21 -0500; Many of the stations had very clicky signals making it almost impossible to hear anything between them. As this prevents someone getting close to them and not having any reason to generate a clean si; /archives//html/Topband/2011-12/msg00047.html (8,187 bytes)
5. Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions (score: 1): Author: N1BUG <paul@n1bug.com>; Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 12:36:59 -0500; Huh? As I stated earlier, out here with the QRM and crowding if you are not darn close to zero beat you risk not being heard. There is no point in calling if you are going to be under the big gun on; /archives//html/Topband/2011-12/msg00048.html (7,889 bytes)
6. Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions (score: 1): Author: Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 12:46:36 -0500; Hi Paul, I was going to ask Wayne off-list about that statement. The more I have learned the more I realize I don't know. My guess was that he might know or observe something that others of us have m; /archives//html/Topband/2011-12/msg00049.html (8,786 bytes)
7. Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions (score: 1): Author: W5JR - Mike <w5jr.lists@att.net>; Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 13:32:42 -0500; Dead on Zero Beat is OK if there is only one station ZB. Same is true is there is only one station up or down X number of hertz. The problem with newer transceivers and the skimmers is that several a; /archives//html/Topband/2011-12/msg00050.html (10,738 bytes)
8. Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions (score: 1): Author: "w7mem@juno.com" <w7mem@juno.com>; Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 18:35:56 GMT; How about W7IJ who was 10 kc up and I had a drifty 519 signal off freq both days...Mark W7MEM Many of the stations had very clicky signals making it almost impossible to hear anything between them. A; /archives//html/Topband/2011-12/msg00051.html (9,156 bytes)
9. Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions (score: 1): Author: N1BUG <paul@n1bug.com>; Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 14:47:44 -0500; Hi Bill, I stand corrected. Evidently they were talking about 50-75 Hz to avoid being EXACTLY zero beat with other callers. That much can be useful. 100+ gets into a gray area, over 200 is usually g; /archives//html/Topband/2011-12/msg00055.html (9,093 bytes)
10. Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions (score: 1): Author: "Mike & Coreen Smith" <ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca>; Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 18:35:10 -0400; I had this problem with CN2R a couple yrs ago in some contest or pileup......we were on 160m and he was S9 or better.... We finally worked and so, what the heck, I emailed the op later to ask (nicely; /archives//html/Topband/2011-12/msg00061.html (10,807 bytes)
11. Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions (score: 1): Author: k6xt <k6xt@k6xt.com>; Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 22:09:55 -0700; Same boat here. Many callers up to a half kc off freq. Whether I worked them or my compatriot CQer nearby is sometimes a guess. The directional rx antennas were sometimes a pain, sometimes the soluti; /archives//html/Topband/2011-12/msg00075.html (9,041 bytes)
12. Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions (score: 1): Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 05:40:19 -0800 (PST); Hi Mike, rate versus multipliers five pointers versus two what's a contester to do? One of the lessons one should learn is to listen first, which seems to be an eternal issue for many, and see what t; /archives//html/Topband/2011-12/msg00083.html (13,060 bytes)
13. Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions (score: 1): Author: Joe Wilkowski <dxradio@k8fc.com>; Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:03:29 -0500; You guys are awful hard on the folks who were off frequency, could not hear , operating in the "prescribed DX window" etc. Everyone needs to step back and consider the challenges that the 160 meter b; /archives//html/Topband/2011-12/msg00086.html (10,613 bytes)
14. Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions (score: 1): Author: <n8ie@woh.rr.com>; Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 12:07:29 -0500; Well said Joe, I enjoy the thrill and challenge of just working 160 much less getting my drawls in a wad over it. :-) I don't have the real-estate to run Beverages, EWEs, or other such RX antennas. I; /archives//html/Topband/2011-12/msg00088.html (11,402 bytes)
15. Topband: ARRL 160 Conditions (score: 1): Author: Brian_ve7jkz <ve7jkz@telus.net>; Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:11:37 -0800; Lots of useful stuff posted, but I haven't seen anything on why propagation was so poor. Is this is a function of solar flux up, 160m down, or what? It's often said that 160/80 are much better at the; /archives//html/Topband/2011-12/msg00105.html (7,766 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]