[CQ-Contest] Re: Choice of CW Narrow filters

[Pedro Pedroso]

On Wed, 12 May 1999, Jon Ogden wrote:

> I will admit that it is frustrating to try a low power operation with a 
> tri-bander and get no where because of the big guns.  It sure was easier 
> when I got my PA working for the CQWWPX and had some umpf behind me. But 
> still it is hard to compete with a stacked array. I admire those guys who 
> do a low power effort and still score more than a lot of the big guns.

	Hello !
	I usualy enter on the low power cathegory because I have no Amp.
	Also I don't have any filters for SSB or CW on my equipment, I
	know how it feels when a big gun appears on a near frequency with
	its tremendous signal and proporcinal splatering and in spite
	of not being on your precise freq he doesn't allow you to copy
	anyone below signal strength 7 or more !! Of course that he didn't
	hear the low power guy when he started his CQ because the low
	power station does not produce a splatering of 2kHz and even if it
	did the big gunner has always a nice filter on the receiver to
	eliminate that !
	In conclusion I believe that filters are essencial when the band
	is crowded. Also (and its not for being a low power enter) I think
	that the low power stations with only 100W and a small tribander
	have to develop a very high operation technic if they want to
	to something in a contest !
	I got 1st place in Europe on 10m low power last CQ WPX CW and
	my station is just an Icom IC-725 100W (NO CW FILTER) and
	thre antena is a 2 Element tribander (TH2). I wonder how many
	of those big gun operators who are used just to call CQ during
	90% of the contest time without ever having problems with someone
	"stealing" his frequency, would perform with a smaller station !?

			73 de CT1ELP Pedro
	

--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com