That is fantastic Gary, I wish I can say the same. That is something to be very
proud of indeed.
-----Original Message-----
From: kd9sv <kd9sv@comcast.net>
To: 'Jorge Diez CX6VM' <cx6vm.jorge@gmail.com>; 'Mike Waters'
<mikewate@gmail.com>
Cc: 'TopBand List' <topband@contesting.com>; 'Herbert Schoenbohm'
<herbs@vitelcom.net>; 'Dave Blaschke, w5un' <w5un@wt.net>
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 6:58 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation
FYI...I have dxcc 304 and 40 zones on 160 meters and all were worked from my
home in NE Indiana. 73, de gary, kd9sv
-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jorge
Diez CX6VM
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 6:38 PM
To: Mike Waters
Cc: TopBand List; Herbert Schoenbohm; Dave Blaschke,w5un
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation
Hello
I have one doubt about that
Can you confirm me that before RHR nobody worked DXCC and WAS from different
locations?
For example someone that move from east coast to Texas and them to west
coast and compute all his/her qsos from this 3 QTH,s?
73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W
Enviado desde mi iPhone
> El 14 ene. 2016, a las 19:42, Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com> escribió:
>
> Dave, Herb, et al:
>
> Respectfully, RHR is likely here to stay, like it or not. If you want to
> try and change that, fine. But I am not going to let that --or how others
> use RHR to their advantage-- bother me. :-)
>
> I get a warm fuzzy feeling of deep contentment operating the 160 meter
> station that I built --and largely designed-- at minimal cost with my own
> two hands and with what's left of my brain. (Well, my XYL, KD0LAJ helped
> with those antennas. ;-) The inverted-L and the tuner. Both 2-wire
Beverage
> antennas and the control systems for them. The preamps.
> The only things I paid money for were parts, such as ferrite cores,
> connectors, wire/coax, and other components. I also built a unique
> legal-limit amplifier for 160 from junk and hamfest parts.
>
> Others might disagree (and I have no problem whatsoever with that), but
> that's why I enjoy amateur radio: build something, and then get on the
> radio and see how well it works. And when it does (like breaking a DX
> pileup with only 100 watts), I run upstairs all exited so that I can share
> my excitement with my wife.
>
> And I'm not alone.* So, why should we let what others do upset us?
> Gentlemen, let's just have fun doing our own thing on 160 (at least most
of
> the time. :-)*
>
> Having said that, I can appreciate that you might want to win a contest,
> and feel that RHR is unfair. I don't disagree with that. But is it
> realistic to think that anyone can change that? From what I've read,
that's
> not likely. (End of psychology dissertation. ;-)
>
>
> On another note ...
>
> I'm now at the point where I'm actually getting somewhat bored with 160m.
> It has nothing to do with what anyone else is doing.
> The "new" has worn off; after operating for over 5 years with the same
> setup, I now pretty much know what to expect from my existing antennas
now.
> (Spectacular band openings are nice; however, they just don't 'pop my
> clutch'. It's what we can accomplish during "normal" band conditions that
> excites me.)
>
> The only thing that will change that and restore my enthusiasm is
modifying
> what I have here. And I have several things on the list:
>
> - Modifying our Beverage antennas so that I can remotely switch the
> lengths from 580' to over 800', and perhaps adding a third E-W Beverage.
>
> - Adding the ability to phase them against the inverted-L during receive
> to null out unwanted signals and noise, using the MFJ-1025 that I've
hardly
> ever used
>
> - And adding a few more elevated radials to the inverted-L
>
>
> When some of that is done, it'll be SO EXCITING again! I won't even care
> about getting involved in discussions like this! ;-)
>
>
> I'm not at all against anyone trying to change the RHR (or any other)
> rules. *But let's keep in mind that at least part of the time, we can shut
> that out of our minds and enjoy 160 meters like we used to.*
>
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm <herbs@vitelcom.net>
> wrote:
>
>> ... a former 160 meter DX pioneer ... used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25
>> watts to work a G station. This is what we are or what we used to be.
RHR
>> I am afraid is the end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts
of
>> QRO muscle and money decided who was on top. ...
>>
>>> On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>>>
>>> ... operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone
>>> else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, built by
>>> your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are unable to
build
>>> one up, what's your choice? [snip]
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4492/11394 - Release Date: 01/13/16
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|