VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 219, Issue 9

To: JamesDuffey <jamesduffey@comcast.net>, "vhfcontesting@contesting.com" <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 219, Issue 9
From: Bill Olson <callbill@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2021 17:08:35 +0000
List-post: <mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Yikes, not to get bogged down in minutia, but has anyone made 2 FT4 QSO's per 
minute for any extended period of time in a contest? like 120 per hour? If so I 
probably need to rethink what I am doing here! Don't want to get into an 
argument here, just interested in some real world numbers

bill, K1DY

________________________________
From: VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting-bounces+callbill=hotmail.com@contesting.com> 
on behalf of JamesDuffey <jamesduffey@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 4:22 PM
To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 219, Issue 9

Keith - I am sorry I didn’t make my point clearer.

Let me clarify and absolve you from ever having made that claim and explain 
where it came from.

In an earlier post, Marshall had lamented that a good operator could make 4 or 
5 SSB/CW QSOs in the time it would take to make a single FT4 QSO. He had 
mentioned you as a good op in that post, which you are. Now an FT4 QSO takes 30 
seconds, so 4 QSOs in that time frame would be 8 a minute, or 480 an hour. Five 
would be 600 an hour. I know you can do 200 an hour, so I put the two points 
Marshall made together along with my personal knowledge of your capabilities.

The broader point I was trying to make, which I guess got lost, was that it 
doesn’t really contribute to the discussion to exaggerate the situation.

Again, sorry I did not make it clear that what I was addressing did not come 
from you.

James Duffey KK6MC
Cedar Crest NM

> On Mar 20, 2021, at 10:06, vhfcontesting-request@contesting.com wrote:
>
> but, I have NEVER made any claim whatsoever of running the
> kind of rate mentioned in that paragraph.  200/hr is easy when conditions
> allow, but I don't know where that other number came from.  Certainly not
> from me.

_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.contesting.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fvhfcontesting&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7Ce832cee77252492d30fc08d8ebbc656d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637518541690186510%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=r1UXDa8dYVKy9Zdj5DfTqRfcMWjL4d4mCQit8o0Wnik%3D&amp;reserved=0
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting

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