[SECC] Band Conditions during NAQP CW

[RJ Hubbard]

Well, from the perspective of 10/15m, then yes those bands were bad :)

I worked one VE3 station at 599+ on 15m and threw out some CQs to no avail.
Seems it could have been open but people were staying in 20m where all the
activity was.

20/40/80/160 seemed to be in good co condition.

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018, 3:11 AM Ben Coleman NJ8J <nj8j at benshome.net> wrote:

> I did my usual pre-contest CQing and checking the RBN to see if I show
> up, to evaluate where to start.  No RBN spot for me on 15, and only 1 on
> 20 (I typically have a handful).  Didn't even check 10, though I did
> scan the 10 phone to see if I could hear any Ten-Ten ops.  I think I
> maybe heard one.  20 seemed to me to be as lackluster as the RBN test
> suggests.
>
> A quick scan of the 3830 emails suggests that a lot of people were
> avoiding 15 and 10.  Lots of 0 Q entries, and those that did have some
> 15 and 10 Qs typically had only a handful.
>
> Ben
>
> On 8/6/2018 7:14 PM, Scott Straw wrote:
> > I find it interesting that RJ, WF4W, and Jim, W4QO, on successive posts
> of their scores had seemingly polar opposite opinions of the band
> conditions... and, considering their operating stations and antennas, I
> would have thought they would have had each taken the other’s position...
> >
> > Of course personal expectations of their stations are probably what they
> each used as a reference...
> >
> > Just something to ponder.
> >
> >
> > Scott, KB4KBS
>
> --
> Ben Coleman nj8j at benshome.net
>  "I love the way Microsoft follows standards.  In much the
> same manner that fish follow migrating caribou."
>                                             Paul Tomblin
> _______________________________________________
> SECC mailing list
> SECC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/secc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/secc/attachments/20180807/19720b57/attachment.html>