[SCCC] ARRL Sweepstakes SSB

[Kate Hutton]

On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Michael Tope <W4EF at dellroy.com> wrote:

> Kate,
>
> Score = #QSO x 2 QSO points/QSO x # Multipliers
>
> 714 = 21 x 2 x 17
>
> You can use the following application to convert a paper log into a
> Cabrillo file and then submit it to ARRL
>
> http://www.b4h.net/cabforms/arrlssssb_cab3.php
>
>
Thanks.  Are there any advantages to actually submitting such a low score?


> I don't have any experience with the Gap Eagle, but from what I hear that
> performance of the GAPs can be all over the place depending on the band and
> the model. There is one model that is notoriously bad on 20 meters while at
> the same time pretty good on 40 meters (might be the Voyager).


This antenna is pretty strange.  15 m is completely unusable; the SWR is
wacko.  10 m is fine (or at least tunable), 12 m is fine, 17 m is fine, 20 m
is fine.  No-one has been able to satisfactorily explain to me why this is,
except that "there is other metal in the area" (such as dog runs in the back
yard).


> I've been running some comparison tests between a Cushcraft R7000 with the
> base at about 8' and inverted-Vs at 35' (80/40/20 meter inverted Vs with a
> common apex). On close-in stuff (out to say 500 miles), the inverted-Vs
> clobber the R7000. On longer distance stuff (> 1000 miles) the R7000 is
> often equal and occassionally better in terms of absolute S-meter reading,
> but almost always more noisy than the inverted-Vs. Depending on the time of
> day, that might explain why you did better on 20 than 40 (if 40 is primarly
> supporting short skip a vertical can put you at a big disadvantage compared
> to a horizontal antenna).
>
>
Comparing similar skip distances, eastern & midwestern US, my impression is
that fewer stations hear me on 40 m than on 20 m.  I had already noticed in
my CW experiences, both far & near, on 20 m stations can copy me & I can
barely copy them.  On 40 m it's the other way around.

Kate