CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] ENNM: Cut Number Breakthrough

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ENNM: Cut Number Breakthrough
From: Zack Widup <w9sz@prairienet.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:33:28 -0600 (CST)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
So if I'm running 248 watts do I send CCXLVIII? Seems counter-productive!
:-)

LXXIII, Zack W9SZ

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Eric Hilding wrote:

> (RE-Threaded from: DUMB CUT NUMBER)
>
> ENNM: Cut Number Breakthrough
>
> If my research is correct, the Roman Numeral 'M' signifies 1,000 which means
> I have just identified the absolute best and shortest cut number for 599
> 1000:
>
> ENNM
>
> This also shortens the infamous 5NNK by one dit.  Multiply one dit (and one
> partial space) by 5,000 QSOs to get an idea of the time savings for Big Gun
> Contesting.
>
> I love it when a plan comes together.  IMHO, ENNM should be the new cut
> number STANDARD for 599 1000.
>
> 73...
>
> Rick, K6VVA
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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