CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] PJ4G ARRL DX SSB Recording by N2IC

To: "sawyered@earthlink.net" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] PJ4G ARRL DX SSB Recording by N2IC
From: brian coyne via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Reply-to: brian coyne <g4odv@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:57:09 +0000 (UTC)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
>>>I am not "using more bandwidth" on the same band.

That is debatable ED and is only really true where an op returning to the first 
radio following a cq,call,or contact,on the second radio  cedes that first 
frequency when finding another stn has moved in. How many do that without 
starting a frequency fight? - I don't come across many.
73  Brian 5B4AIZ.

      From: Ed Sawyer <sawyered@earthlink.net>
 To: cq-contest@contesting.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2017, 15:53
 Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] PJ4G ARRL DX SSB Recording by N2IC
   
For the record, I often SO2R on the same band.  However I am not dual CQing
on the same band.  So - I am not "using more bandwidth" on the same band.

 

I agree with KK9A that if 2 or more bands are wide open, dual CQing on 2
bands is no different use of space than dual CQing on one band.  But in the
bottom half of the sunspot cycle, there is a difference because for good
chunks of time, there might be only one optimum band for a circuit (ie - NA
to EU).  I think ARRL should make it against the rules like CQ has.  

 

Ed  N1UR

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


   
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>