CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Why 160m in SS?

To: <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Why 160m in SS?
From: "Nat Heatwole" <nat@ajheatwole.com>
Date: 19 Dec 2005 17:45:48 -0800
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:45:19 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
It was a very different story for SS SSB this year. Look at all of those
QSOs on 160m:

http://lists.contesting.com/archives/html/3830/2005-11/msg01389.html

Although I've never seen a 3830 score report that had QSOs on 160m prior to
this year's SS contests.

73!
Nat WZ3AR



-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dale Martin
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 7:48 PM
To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Why 160m in SS?


Why is there a 160m band category (?) in SS CW/SSB?

In looking over the 3830 band summary for 2005 SS CW, out of 423 submitted
reports, there's only one station reporting making as many as 1 QSO on 160.

Why even bother to carry this band as a usable band in SS?

Say..um.ummmm..that opened wine bottle from the back of the bottom tray of
the refrigerator wasn't all that bad.

73,
Dale, kg5u



_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>