[CQ-Contest] ARRL 10 Metre Logs Missing
sam.ferris.erm at govmail.gov.sk.ca
sam.ferris.erm at govmail.gov.sk.ca
Thu Apr 15 16:07:02 EDT 1999
Found my log to missing from the ARRL web site list as well, but was able
to reach Dan this morning before he left for a convention. He was quite
helpful and looked for my log on his system right away. He found the CT
bin file that I had sent and noted he would make sure my log did appear
in the published results even though the list of logs received at the
ARRL web site may not be revised anytime soon.
Sam
VE5SF
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
>From Guy Olinger, K2AV" <k2av at qsl.net Thu Apr 15 22:51:52 1999
From: Guy Olinger, K2AV" <k2av at qsl.net (Guy Olinger, K2AV)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:51:52 -0400
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Help on choice of CW Narrow filter
Message-ID: <004001be878a$2cafade0$36e5fea9 at mahopac>
If one is at a beeegg contest station and you know you're the loud guy on
the frequency, working up and down guys ok. However, for us medium and not
so medium signals, working folks above and below the INRAD 400 hz bandpass
is fraught with 3 qso penalty risk. If one doesn't return a call to an
off-frequency station, they will either get on your frequency, or they were
working someone else. The residue that can't figure out how to work you on
your frequency aren't worth the risk.
73, y'all.
Guy.
-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Kutner <w2up at mindspring.com>
To: Contest Reflector <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
Date: Thursday, April 15, 1999 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Help on choice of CW Narrow filter
> Pedro Pedroso wrote:
> At first I thought that the 250Hz would be the best one, but on
> >second thoughts maybe it is too narrow and it would not let me
> >hear operators that are not so well tuned on my frequency but
> >still are trying to answer my call.
>
Personally, I like the 500 Hz filter in my FT-1000D for running. I
really don't like keeping one hand on the RIT all the time, and I use
my brain's DSP to do additional filtering :.) During ARRL CW, I was at
a mulitop and used an FT-1000MP with an IRI 500 Hz filter. I thought it
was too narrow and did have to do a lot of tuning. Plenty of stations
call off frequency!
73 Barry
--
Barry Kutner, W2UP Internet: w2up at mindspring.com
Newtown, PA Frankford Radio Club
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
>From Larry Schimelpfenig" <lvschim at 1bigred.com Fri Apr 16 00:52:59 1999
From: Larry Schimelpfenig" <lvschim at 1bigred.com (Larry Schimelpfenig)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 19:52:59 -0400
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Help on choice of CW Narrow filter
Message-ID: <007601be879b$6d100680$5b51efce at 1bigred>
Pedro,
It's very encouraging to see more interest in cw from Portugal! My passion
is also for CW!
I see you have gotten lots of expert advice. Many good operators have
offered opinions based on their experience. I would like to add a few words.
First, I believe that the experience you have had in working cw without a
filter is very beneficial to you. You are learning to use your brain as a
filter. From my home qth I have a choice between a 2.4khz ssb filter or a
400hz cw filter. As much as possible I use the ssb filter. My activity is
primarily contesting, and I like to use a wider filter if possible because
many stations seem to have trouble zero beating. Someone said he used a
narrow filter all the time and didn't think that the number of stations he
is missing is significant. Time and again I have listened to stations
running Europeans from the East Coast who were very obviously using narrow
filters, and were not tuning with rit. They had many stations calling, but
the only ones they were answering were very closely zero beat.
When operating from my pal NR4M's (ex NJ4F) qth I use an 1800hz filter as
much as possible. I find that filter wide enough that I don't need to tune
as much with rit. When things get really tough like on 40 when the band is
full of loud signals I sometimes have to go to a 500hz filter,
and then I do a lot more tuning with rit.
Now this is only my opinion. but I believe that if you can only put in one
cw filter, 250hz is too narrow. As someone else suggested I think 400hz is
an excellent choice, and at home I use a 400hz IR filter. They market a
great product.
Stick to cw and use the filters between your ears as much as possible! I
would say that's probably the first advice you would get from a great cw
contester like Fred K3ZO!
73 de Larry K7SV
-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro Pedroso <l38217 at alfa.ist.utl.pt>
To: Contest Reflector <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
Date: Thursday, April 15, 1999 8:53 AM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Help on choice of CW Narrow filter
>
>
>
> Hello !
> I am a very active operator on the HF bands.
> I started CW only a few years ago and liked it so much that it is
> my most comon mode of operation today.
> For all this time I have never used a CW narrow filter, but it is
> not very pleasent to operate CW contests withou it, specialy if
> you want to work 40m (it is complete caos).
> Since my equipment supports only one filter I must choose between
> the 500Hz or the 250Hz filter.
> At first I thought that the 250Hz would be the best one, but on
> second thoughts maybe it is too narrow and it would not let me
> hear operators that are not so well tuned on my frequency but
> still are trying to answer my call.
> I wonder what most of the DXers and Contesters use and why.
> All comments will be apreciated.
>
> 73 de CT1ELP Pedro Pedroso
>
> ct1elp at amsat.org
>
>
> | Pedro Pedroso | CT1ELP |
> | Eng. Electrotecnica e Computadores | Founder member of GPDX |
> | (Telecomunicacoes e electronica) | ct1elp at amsat.org |
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Address: P.O.Box 116 , 2806 Almada Codex , PORTUGAL |
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>--
>CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
>Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
>
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list