It would be interesting to know how much time was spent sending CQ by N6RO on
6m CW versus transmitting in FT8 mode. Did they just work a few they happened
to hear or did the make a significant effort to attract callers. Without
knowing that info it would be difficult to know whether CW QSOs were not
possible in a number greater than 11 or whether they could have made a hundred
QSOs with a major effort to do so.
Stan, K5GO
> On Oct 25, 2022, at 6:17 PM, john@kk9a.com wrote:
>
> Those are sad VHF CW totals but it is not just 6m that lacks Morse code
> activity. Earlier this year I operated 30m CW from PJ4 using a 2el beam on
> a mountain top. Conditions seemed good but I had to beg for QSOs and quit
> before making a hundred. I had similarly poor results last year from P4.
> 15-20 years ago I had huge 30m CW pilups from P40A using a low dipole.
>
> John KK9A
>
>
> Jim Brown k9yc wrote:
>
> This was the summary for 22 hours in June VHF by 4 ops at super-station
> N6RO running High Power. At least three are serious CW contesters,
> including N6RO himself. In the write-up, WD6T noted "CW contacts
> galore," with 12 CW QSOs, all on 6M. N6RO is about 90 miles NE of me.
>
> Band Mode QSOs Pts Grd Pt/Q
> 50 CW 11 11 5 1.0
> 50 FM 1 1 0 1.0
> 50 FT8 181 181 103 1.0
> 50 USB 44 44 13 1.0
> 144 FM 8 8 2 1.0
> 144 FT8 4 4 0 1.0
> 144 RTTY 2 2 0 1.0
> 144 USB 33 33 9 1.0
> 222 USB 8 16 6 2.0
> 420 FM 2 4 0 2.0
> 420 USB 27 54 11 2.0
> 1240 USB 15 45 6 3.0
> Total Both 336 403 155 1.2
>
> 73, K9YC
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|