Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:pokane@ei5di.com: 410 ]

Total 410 documents matching your query.

41. Re: [CQ-Contest] Log-checking and RST [was: cut numbers] (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 18:17:13 -0000
Please consider this post to be an effort to contact the logchecking teams to get a definitive answer on the subject of busted RSTs. You claim that QSOs in ARRL 10M and ARRL 160M are busted if the ex
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00018.html (8,813 bytes)

42. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest/Station Logging Software Question (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 07:43:58 -0000
Here's one more Contest: SD by EI5DI - www.ei5di.com/sd/sdsetup.exe It's free, and it runs on any Windows PC. 73, Paul EI5DI _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00231.html (7,661 bytes)

43. Re: [CQ-Contest] SPOTTING AD NAUSEUM (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 15:28:35 -0000
Here's a parallel argument - I don't support it either :-) Reality Show. Amplifiers are here to stay. I believe that HP/LP/QRP should be lumped into one category. If you think power helps, use it. At
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00152.html (7,547 bytes)

44. Re: [CQ-Contest] Spotting AD Nauseum (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 08:43:15 -0000
This implies that any present or future technology that might possibly improve your score is fair game. I believe that some technologies are inappropriate in the context of amateur radio contesting.
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00176.html (8,107 bytes)

45. Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC-2007 (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:55:59 -0000
In RDXC-2007, Rule 5.1.2. states "All categories of entrant are allowed to use packet and WEB clusters". http://www.rdxc.org/asp/pages/rulesg.asp To me, this is at odds with the rules and spirit of a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00187.html (7,347 bytes)

46. Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Site Contesting Rules (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:21:41 -0000
It's easy - wired networks (even with RF links) are not amateur radio. They're often called the internet. Others may call them something else, perhaps amateur remote control or amateur networking, bu
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00273.html (9,782 bytes)

47. [CQ-Contest] When is a QSO not a QSO? (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:34:39 -0000
Was "Remote Site Contesting Rules - Getting out of hand". Paul is right. Amateur radio, and contesting in particular, is a point-to-point (single-point to single-point), personto-person, solely-RF-ba
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00334.html (8,318 bytes)

48. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R REMOTE CONTESTING (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:47:31 +0100
The phrase "rest of the radio" acknowledges that some parts of the radio are not located at the transmitting/receiving site. Does a QSO represent 2-way communication between equipment or between peop
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00546.html (10,355 bytes)

49. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R REMOTE CONTESTING (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:59:39 +0100
Richard is perfectly entitled to do that. He has invested time and money in something he enjoys, and it's not harming anyone. The question is whether remote operation is acceptable for amateur radio
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00581.html (9,701 bytes)

50. Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Contesting (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:52:25 +0100
That is correct - except when they are used as a substitute for RF when contesting or chasing awards. . . It might be an even bigger hoot if we could minimise our dependence on location and RF and pr
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00627.html (8,678 bytes)

51. [CQ-Contest] QSOs and Thoroughbreds (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:34:28 +0100
Just as there is more than one way to have a "QSO", there is more than one way to breed horses. The Jockey Club, however, insists on the old-fashioned method for breeding thoroughbreds (the contester
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00630.html (8,530 bytes)

52. Re: [CQ-Contest] Michigan QSO Party this coming weekend (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:25:43 +0100
SD now supports both sides of MIQP. It runs on any Windows PC and is free from www.ei5di.com/sd/sdsetup.exe. Michigan entrants use the "MIQP, MI" template, all others the "MIQP, DX" template. 73, Pau
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-04/msg00151.html (7,256 bytes)

53. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R REMOTE CONTESTING (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:25:24 +0100
I hold it to be self-evident that not all QSOs are created equal, and that they are devalued to the extent that there is a substitute for RF in the path between the operators. For example: 1. Skype Q
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-06/msg00441.html (8,627 bytes)

54. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R REMOTE CONTESTING (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:31:12 +0100
No - contest rules typically permit wired circuits within a 500-meter circle. I care deeply about amateur radio. There's no practical difference between your 3000 km microphone line, and a 3000 km Ec
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-06/msg00443.html (9,222 bytes)

55. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R REMOTE CONTESTING (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:51:50 +0100
I agree remote control is a reality. All I'm trying to do is put down a marker for controlling and regulating it for the purposes of contesting and award chasing. I maintain, and I know the remote-co
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-06/msg00470.html (10,227 bytes)

56. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R REMOTE CONTESTING (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:53:20 +0100
Well, at least I know where we're starting from :-) If you believe that a QSO can be considered to be a station-to-station event, do you then consider a VOIP call to be an ISP-to-ISP event rather tha
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-06/msg00477.html (12,043 bytes)

57. Re: [CQ-Contest] Bermuda DX Contest? (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 07:46:49 +0100
There's something similar on September 29/30 this year. "CQIR - Ireland Calling" is a once-off event to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Irish Radio Transmitters Society. Overseas entrants with
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00156.html (8,175 bytes)

58. [CQ-Contest] IARU HQ Stations (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:52:52 +0100
HQ Stations are identified by the fact that they send something other than numbers in the exchange - apart from AC, R1, R2 and R3 which are valid non-numeric "Zones". This is independent of any speci
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00216.html (7,686 bytes)

59. Re: [CQ-Contest] Ic 706 Mark 11 and Writelog for NAQP CW (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:41:56 +0100
That's the bottom line. There's nothing magic about N1MM or any other Windows logger supporting parallelport keying. Their CW will sound fine on some PCs, but terrible on most - compared to WinKey. 7
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00383.html (7,765 bytes)

60. Re: [CQ-Contest] Post WAE log massaging. What do you think? (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:48:36 +0100
. Is it so bad? After all, DARC allows entrants to record QTCs, for post-WAE log-entry or massaging. An additional non-amateur-radio, post-WAE means of massaging QTCs will hardly make a difference. S
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-08/msg00212.html (8,782 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu