Del Seay wrote:
>
> Bill Hider wrote:
> >
> > Your tower (or any other object on your property) will cast a shadow
> > TRUE North at the time of day that is exactly half way between local
> > sunrise and local sunset.
>
> How much are you willing to bet on it? Try it here! de KL7HF
Del, I bet it does work there. It's just going to be more difficult to
accomplish, but I believe the theory works just the same.
Bill
>From rfpwr@linknet.net (Charles Young) Sat Nov 2 00:44:28 1996
From: rfpwr@linknet.net (Charles Young) (Charles Young)
Subject: VISIT TO W5WMU/N6TR
Message-ID: <9611020044.AA18903@popalex1.linknet.net>
Hi All:
Just returned from a recon of W5WMU where I met Tree, N6TR. He is just about
finished setting up for SS CW. His biggest problem will be deciding which of
W5WMU's antennas to use. Pat's antenna farm grows exponentially every year.
Yes, I did see a low tribander....but only one. The 40M antennas are
awesome. There has surely been a lot of work go into this antenna farm.
The TR software as demonstrated by the author works slick..wish I had the
time to purchase and learn to use it but no dice this year.
Tree is a class act... I was impressed with his willingness to answer any
question I asked about strategy or operating techniques. Best of luck to him
and to the rest of you in the contest tomorrow....CU in SS.
Too bad the FCC didn't get the vanity calls issued before the test...might
have increased participation.
73, Chas N8RR (and remaining)
>From aa0cy@robertwanderer.gardnerville.nv.us (Robert Wanderer) Fri Nov 1
>04:49:54 1996
From: aa0cy@robertwanderer.gardnerville.nv.us (Robert Wanderer) (Robert
Wanderer)
Subject: CQWW & 7 MHz - A Suggestion
Message-ID: <01BBC826.EBA51E40@robertwanderer.gardnerville.nv.us>
Why not get all the National Groups together and press for a universal 7 MHz
ham allocation of 7000-7300 kHz. If SW broadcasters went SSB the needed
spectrum could be found. How come they don't have to be concerned about
conserving spectrum yet every other service does?
73, Bob AA0CY
----------
From: Jan-Erik Holm 0920 239081[SMTP:JEH@on.mobitel.telia.se]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 1996 2:35 AM
To: cq-contest@tgv.com
Subject: Re: CQWW & 7 MHz - A Suggestion
> OR STATIONS IN EUROPE -
>
> You must *not* solicit contacts, i.e. call CQ, on SSB below 7040 KHz.
> Working a multiplier is permitted if the station contacted was actually
> soliciting contacts, i.e. he was calling CQ. After completing the contact
> you must QSY.
>
>
> That's the bare-bones of it, there may be some refinements required along
> the way, but I believe the problem is European based and we should be
> taking the initiative NOW to clear up what has become a worsening situation.
>
> Comments please?
>
>
> Steve GW4BLE
In a fantasy world it might work. The only way is for the CQ WW commitee to
enforce a contest legal segment for the SSB contest that compleatly would
ban contest SSB activity from below 7040.
All I can say is WAKE UP CQ WW CONTEST COMMITEE since the situation
is totaly out of hand.
de Jim SM2EKM
>From jfunk@adams.net (jim funk) Sat Nov 2 03:11:18 1996
From: jfunk@adams.net (jim funk) (jim funk)
Subject: SS Ferraris
Message-ID: <9611020311.AA05970@golden.adams.net>
Hi All,
Believe it was K1ZX who suggested sending "PSE QRS" if you come upon a
speeding CQ'er in SS and want to slow him down. My alternative suggestion
would be to send a *slow* question mark. It conveys the same idea (I'd like
to call you, I think, but you're too fast for me and what the heck is your
call, anyhow?"), but doesn't blot out another caller. If I know you're
there and wanting me to slow down, I WILL slow down!
See ya'll this weekend.
73, Jim N9JF
The Lane, The Pole, The 2-Yard Line, 14.002; Radio Contesting isn't for Sissies.
|