[CQ-Contest] Why 160m in SS?

Richard DiDonna NN3W NN3W at prodigy.net
Mon Dec 19 23:22:58 EST 2005

Yah, I know that Jeff N8II spent a little bit of time 
up on 160.  I haven't had a chance to talk to him 
about it, but it kinda surprised me.  In fact, N4RV 
and I were talking about 160 during one of my off 
times during SS Phone.  Neither of us could remember 
correctly if 160 was an eligible band for SS, or if it 
was an "out of bounds" band as in WAE.

73 Rich NN3W

--- Original Message ---
From: "Nat Heatwole" <nat at ajheatwole.com>
To: <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Why 160m in SS?

>It was a very different story for SS SSB this year. 
Look at all of those
>QSOs on 160m:
>Although I've never seen a 3830 score report that had 
QSOs on 160m prior to
>this year's SS contests.
>Nat WZ3AR
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
>[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf 
Of Dale Martin
>Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 7:48 PM
>To: CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>Subject: [CQ-Contest] Why 160m in SS?
>Why is there a 160m band category (?) in SS CW/SSB?
>In looking over the 3830 band summary for 2005 SS CW, 
out of 423 submitted
>reports, there's only one station reporting making as 
many as 1 QSO on 160.
>Why even bother to carry this band as a usable band 
in SS?
>Say..um.ummmm..that opened wine bottle from the back 
of the bottom tray of
>the refrigerator wasn't all that bad.
>Dale, kg5u
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list