Search String: Display: Description: Sort:


References: [ 493 ]

Total 493 documents matching your query.

61. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSL Practices (score: 1)
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 12:41:27 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
I guess it is time to come out of the closet on this. I personally, have a hard (check that), impossible time keeping up with the QSL requests for contest Qs through the Bureau. I have not answered Q
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00107.html (8,206 bytes)

62. [CQ-Contest] Holding a Freq Before a Contest (score: 1)
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 12:48:05 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Some have called the practice of getting on for a period preceding a contest on a certain desirable frequency cheating. Do you consider this cheating? Are any of the Qs logged before the contest put
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00159.html (8,684 bytes)

63. Re: [CQ-Contest] Spotting and YN4FD (score: 1)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:37:12 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Rick, I have to tell you that I am "amazed" that a YN could work 3100 Qs in ARRL DX and I never heard a peep of him. As SO2R and "combing the bands" with my south facing 10M and 15M beams while CQing
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-03/msg00207.html (7,013 bytes)

64. Re: [CQ-Contest] Filters (score: 1)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:12:31 -0500 (EST)
I have operated several times on the same band and even the same band and mode using 100 - 150 Watts out and getting as close as 30 - 40khz from the transmitting station with the second radio. This h
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-03/msg00257.html (7,165 bytes)

65. [CQ-Contest] CQ WPX OFF TIMES (score: 1)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:18:53 -0500 (EST)
I notice in the 2006 rules for WPX contest, that the mention of 60 minute minimum off times has been removed. Is this intentional? Even if not intentional, how can CQ ding someone for less than 60 mi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-03/msg00318.html (6,821 bytes)

66. Re: [CQ-Contest] Vee Beams (score: 1)
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:11:54 -0400 (EDT)
Duncan, I have used a number of vee beams, both terminated and unterminated. Usually fed with open wire line. Personally, I would not suggest using them for contesting unless you live in an area like
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-05/msg00053.html (7,829 bytes)

67. [CQ-Contest] FTDX-9000 SO2R (score: 1)
Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 13:17:57 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
I would be very interested in reading a write-up of an FTDX-9000 owner doing a contest with true SO2R operation. One that used to do it with 2 radios and now is doing it with one. If there has been s
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-05/msg00136.html (7,195 bytes)

68. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO1R vs. SO2R (score: 1)
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 18:17:35 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
Guys. My situation over the past few years is a "case study" on what is really important. 2 years ago, I moved a full bore SO2R set up (FT1000MP/FT990, Dunestars, 6-pack, DXDoubler, Hard Line, etc.)
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-07/msg00564.html (8,116 bytes)

69. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO1R vs. SO2R (score: 1)
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 01:19:45 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
Nothing will get you off that, Bill. How about the big vs. little antenna system, hard line vs. crappy coax, number of miles from the Atlantic in DX contests, number of miles from the Northeast in Do
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-07/msg00577.html (8,836 bytes)

70. Re: [CQ-Contest] WARC Contesting (score: 1)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 12:16:56 -0400 (EDT)
Mike, KB3EIA said: "I believe that it is in contesters and Amateur radio's general best interest that we allow some "contest free zones". Just a matter of trying to get along with our neighbors." Mik
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-08/msg00037.html (7,508 bytes)

71. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R Technique (score: 1)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 11:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
A great question and one that has no "fixed" answer. I can only offer comment for myself. First of all, I NEVER use auto CQ. It keeps me awake in the middle of the night for one. Secondly, the timing
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-08/msg00064.html (8,809 bytes)

72. Re: [CQ-Contest] A New Perspective (score: 1)
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 05:51:55 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
I am in total agreement with this new thought process being formed. Rather than push sponsors who are driven by other incentives (like magazine revenue dollars), lets use the tools that we have, on l
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-09/msg00148.html (8,552 bytes)

73. Re: [CQ-Contest] A New Perspective..... (score: 1)
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 05:53:36 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
Contesting is not video gaming. And, quite frankly, I don't see dedicated gamers being fruitful ground for new contesters. For me, contesting is much, much closer to stock car racing than gaming. It
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-09/msg00187.html (8,604 bytes)

74. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting Extinction (score: 1)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 06:07:33 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
Some very interesting and meaningful posts on this. The key point coming through to me is young costester encouragement and deed restricted challenges. This reflector has talked a lot about more cate
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00076.html (9,435 bytes)

75. Re: [CQ-Contest] Real Time Scoreboards (score: 1)
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:56:10 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
Bob, Thanks for asking for opinons. My feeling is that this realtime scoreboard should be encouraged but viewing it should require a log on (so you know who's viewing) and it should be restricted to
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00427.html (10,069 bytes)

76. Re: [CQ-Contest] Zero Pointers (score: 1)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:44:14 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Guys. I can totally appreciate the frustration of SIGNIFICANT zero point Qs for many running stations in the US that are outsdie the Northeast. However, why is the dialog towards radically changing t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00667.html (9,456 bytes)

77. [CQ-Contest] Packet vs. Telnet (be serious) (score: 1)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 13:18:53 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Am I the only one who is shaking their head at the concept that people are starting to backslide themselves into thinking that accessing the worldwide internet spot database through RF packet could s
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-11/msg00286.html (7,687 bytes)

78. Re: [CQ-Contest] SS CW precedence data (score: 1)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 07:46:00 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Thanks for this post. Interesting data. I would have to disagree with your observation though. It looks like A has gone down roughly 100 people and that around half are now low power and half are ass
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-11/msg00428.html (8,459 bytes)

79. [CQ-Contest] Definition of Non-Assisted (score: 1)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:00:01 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Could someone from both the ARRL and CQ Contest Committees comment on this statement being accurate? "Actually a better way to put this would be "using the internet to solicit contacts" which is what
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-11/msg00532.html (7,744 bytes)

80. [CQ-Contest] DX Windows (score: 1)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 05:59:59 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Personally, I have no problem with the DX window being used in SS if the frequency is clear before CQing just like I think that the 14300 frequency is up for grabs if it is unused when tuned across.
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-11/msg00639.html (7,422 bytes)

This search system is powered by Namazu