Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 240, Issue 4
Richard McLachlan
richard at rodsley.net
Tue Dec 6 14:09:51 EST 2022
Personally in contests I don’t even switch the computer on, but maybe I am old fashioned.
Regards
Richard G3OQT
> On 6 Dec 2022, at 17:01, topband-request at contesting.com wrote:
>
> Send Topband mailing list submissions to
> topband at contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> topband-request at contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> topband-owner at contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. ARRL 160 (Ron Spencer)
> 2. Re: Fwd: Ground conductivity discussions ? oops
> (James V Redding PE)
> 3. Re: My new 9 Circle works great! (Joe)
> 4. Re: Ground conductivity discussions ? oops (Dennis Ashworth)
> 5. Prop For ARRL 160 (Jim Brown)
> 6. Re: My new 9 Circle works great! (Stig Vestergaard)
> 7. Re: ARRL 160 (Ed Parish)
> 8. Cluster Spots and the ARRL 160 (ws6x.ars at gmail.com)
> 9. Re: ARRL 160 (Pete Smith N4ZR)
> 10. Stew Perry coming in 11 days (Tree)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2022 08:55:10 -0700
> From: Ron Spencer <ron.spencer at zoho.com>
> To: "topband" <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: ARRL 160
> Message-ID: <184e2ff8fe7.cc36e5d13296722.8911938702354885415 at zoho.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Re Packet and the contest??????
>
>
> May not be of interest to everyone.?
>
>
>
> Sat evening around 0010 or so, had been running with a nice rate. Then a dupe. And another. And yet another. This continued for around 15 minutes until I finally QSY'd to escape.?
>
>
>
> My guess of what happened: someone spotted me but with an incorrect call. On all those using packet, a new call popped up. They clicked on it, dumped in their call. Typically I work all dupes and,? for the first few did but, as the volume grew, I replied with their call, mine and "B4". Most went away but a few insisted on a Q.?
>
>
>
> In addition to showing how far our hobby has sunk, isn't it the responsibility of the calling station to actually copy the call sign? Many of the stations that duped me were very recognizable stations. Again, guessing, they were running SO2R, clicked on the spot, called and expected a quick Q. NEVER bothering to check accuracy of packet spot. Is it a valid contact if you don't copy the actual call sign? Even if the call was correct on packet. Or are we moving towards letting the computer do most of the work??
>
>
>
> Sure would be interesting if more contests were like the Stew Perry where no spotting assistance is allowed. You have to actually copy the information...... Yes, I know. A radical idea.
>
>
>
> Ron
>
> N4XD
> Sent using https://www.zoho.com/mail/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 12:33:00 -0500
> From: James V Redding PE <jredding at ieee.org>
> To: Dennis Ashworth <dennis at ashworth.org>
> Cc: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: Ground conductivity discussions ? oops
> Message-ID:
> <CAEa-wQj5kMXVV5=eNJdufrKLHvVkTVKC-onGtPPc-qfGa3N5UA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Here is a link to a method of actually measuring the soil complex
> conductivity characteristics and it is focused on 80M:
>
> https://rudys.typepad.com/files/soil-characteristics-qex.pdf
>
> Since the depth of the measurement is a function of frequency, the numbers
> for 80M may be quite different than for other HF bands.
>
> Was also curious whether the elements were detuned for their individual
> impedance measurements like would be done with a BCB array or if the 25
> ohms is a common point measurement.
>
> Jim/VEZ
>
>
>
>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 9:21 AM Dennis Ashworth <dennis at ashworth.org> wrote:
>>
>> I meant to post this to the TowerTalk group. It still may be relevant to
>> Topband ops.
>>
>> Dennis, K7FL
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> From: Dennis Ashworth <dennis at ashworth.org>
>> Date: Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 8:54 AM
>> Subject: Ground conductivity discussions
>> To: <topband at contesting.com>
>>
>>
>> Very interesting and timely discussions on radials and ground conductivity.
>> I?m currently rebuilding an 80M broadside array (with shortened, top loaded
>> elements) in SW Utah that I?ve modeled at 12 ohms impedance. The current
>> antenna was tested and the impedance measured was 25 ohms. Each element in
>> the array (4 total) also measured 25 ohms. What accounts for additional
>> system loss?
>>
>> Upon consulting the original builders, I learned they had also predicted an
>> impedance of approximately 12 ohms. I?m not clear what methods or models
>> they used for their prediction. There are 4:1 baluns at the base of each
>> vertical which begs the question whether the array impedances were ever
>> checked post-install. I suspect not ? and I doubt anything has changed over
>> the years that would equally affect the impedance *on all 4 verticals.*
>>
>> Where I don?t blindly trust models (antennas or otherwise), I do believe
>> the 12 ohm figure is reasonable given the short, top loaded elements. I
>> reviewed the FCC conductivity tables for the locale and they indicate 15-30
>> millimos/meter. That?s pretty good! I would think the loss from a ground
>> system of 32, 1/4 wave plus radials would NOT account for the 12 ohms of
>> loss ground losses. But what if my ground conductivity is less than the FCC
>> tables report?
>>
>> I?m going to the site again next week to install 26 additional 1/4 wave
>> radials on one of the verticals and see if (and how much) the measured
>> impedance drops. I?ll share my results here.
>>
>> This loss has to be a ground system issue. If so, adding radials and seeing
>> a corresponding drop in impedance should confirm my suspicions.
>>
>> At some point, I?ll measure the ground conductivity, but it needs to wait
>> for warmer temps (current temp at site is 19F!).
>>
>> Insight from the masses always appreciated.
>>
>>
>> Dennis, K7FL
>> Las Vegas, NV
>> _________________
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
>> Reflector
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 13:16:25 -0600
> From: Joe <nss at mwt.net>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: My new 9 Circle works great!
> Message-ID: <800f959c-6c0b-aa78-3495-ccf0b93c51d3 at mwt.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Any links to this system?
>
> Joe WB9SBD
>
>> On 12/4/2022 1:34 PM, Jim Miller wrote:
>> Thanks to Steve's, VE6WZ, excellent YouTube videos, I decided to tackle a
>> better RX antenna. I've been using a 2 element array phased by an NCC-2
>> which is better than what I've had in the past (BOG, K9AY) but I wanted
>> better.
>>
>> After evaluating my space available and finding it too small I asked my
>> neighbor for seasonal use of their adjoining lot and they graciously
>> agreed! My N, NW and W elements are on their property.
>>
>> Steve's videos include KiCad files for the combiner and preamps and he was
>> very helpful by email with any of my questions.
>>
>> I just completed the array last night and got it on the air and I was
>> astonished by how well it worked.
>>
>> Of course it isn't going to create signals out of thin air but it is much
>> quieter due to better RDF and the front to back is very impressive. Strong
>> signals on the waterfall just disappear when the antenna is reversed!
>>
>> I'm very happy to get such an improved antenna for 80 and 160 in a 120ft
>> diameter circle!
>>
>> As a bonus I use it with PSTRotator and a USB controlled relay box so no
>> manual switch box is required on my desk. Just a mouse click selects the
>> desired direction or it can track my logger automatically.
>>
>> FYI, most of the cost is in the aluminum, the combiner and preamps were
>> pretty cheap to build.
>>
>> Many thanks to VE6WZ!!
>>
>> 73
>>
>> jim ab3cv
>> _________________
>> Searchable Archives:http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 11:20:47 -0800
> From: Dennis Ashworth <dennis at ashworth.org>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Ground conductivity discussions ? oops
> Message-ID:
> <CAEn-CUqMPBdzEqnW2aPrW+Se+q8=niEiDW4MCtaMDaoTL_xPkg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>> Hi Jim ? thanks for the info. Rudy?s latest method is the one I was
>> planning to employ. Brian, K6STI also mentioned Rudy?s method. Good
>> consensus on which method to use!
>>
>> Yes, all other elements were either de tuned or on the ground. I have
>> checked each vertical one at a time (with others decoupled) and read 25
>> ohms on all 4 elements. Such a head scratcher! I?m beginning to the my
>> aluminum elements are doped with Nichrome! :-)
>>
>> Dennis, K7FL
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 9:33 AM James V Redding PE <jredding at ieee.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a link to a method of actually measuring the soil complex
>>> conductivity characteristics and it is focused on 80M:
>>>
>>> https://rudys.typepad.com/files/soil-characteristics-qex.pdf
>>>
>>> Since the depth of the measurement is a function of frequency, the
>>> numbers for 80M may be quite different than for other HF bands.
>>>
>>> Was also curious whether the elements were detuned for their individual
>>> impedance measurements like would be done with a BCB array or if the 25
>>> ohms is a common point measurement.
>>>
>>> Jim/VEZ
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 9:21 AM Dennis Ashworth <dennis at ashworth.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I meant to post this to the TowerTalk group. It still may be relevant to
>>>> Topband ops.
>>>>
>>>> Dennis, K7FL
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>> From: Dennis Ashworth <dennis at ashworth.org>
>>>> Date: Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 8:54 AM
>>>> Subject: Ground conductivity discussions
>>>> To: <topband at contesting.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Very interesting and timely discussions on radials and ground
>>>> conductivity.
>>>> I?m currently rebuilding an 80M broadside array (with shortened, top
>>>> loaded
>>>> elements) in SW Utah that I?ve modeled at 12 ohms impedance. The current
>>>> antenna was tested and the impedance measured was 25 ohms. Each element
>>>> in
>>>> the array (4 total) also measured 25 ohms. What accounts for additional
>>>> system loss?
>>>>
>>>> Upon consulting the original builders, I learned they had also predicted
>>>> an
>>>> impedance of approximately 12 ohms. I?m not clear what methods or models
>>>> they used for their prediction. There are 4:1 baluns at the base of each
>>>> vertical which begs the question whether the array impedances were ever
>>>> checked post-install. I suspect not ? and I doubt anything has changed
>>>> over
>>>> the years that would equally affect the impedance *on all 4 verticals.*
>>>>
>>>> Where I don?t blindly trust models (antennas or otherwise), I do believe
>>>> the 12 ohm figure is reasonable given the short, top loaded elements. I
>>>> reviewed the FCC conductivity tables for the locale and they indicate
>>>> 15-30
>>>> millimos/meter. That?s pretty good! I would think the loss from a ground
>>>> system of 32, 1/4 wave plus radials would NOT account for the 12 ohms of
>>>> loss ground losses. But what if my ground conductivity is less than the
>>>> FCC
>>>> tables report?
>>>>
>>>> I?m going to the site again next week to install 26 additional 1/4 wave
>>>> radials on one of the verticals and see if (and how much) the measured
>>>> impedance drops. I?ll share my results here.
>>>>
>>>> This loss has to be a ground system issue. If so, adding radials and
>>>> seeing
>>>> a corresponding drop in impedance should confirm my suspicions.
>>>>
>>>> At some point, I?ll measure the ground conductivity, but it needs to wait
>>>> for warmer temps (current temp at site is 19F!).
>>>>
>>>> Insight from the masses always appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dennis, K7FL
>>>> Las Vegas, NV
>>>> _________________
>>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
>>>> Reflector
>>>>
>>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 12:05:36 -0800
> From: Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> To: 'TopBand' <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: Prop For ARRL 160
> Message-ID:
> <72a34bfc-d14d-05c5-5c24-f48a7174928e at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> It was totally stinko for the contest.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 06:51:41 +0100
> From: Stig Vestergaard <gsvestergaard at gmail.com>
> To: Joe <nss at mwt.net>
> Cc: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: My new 9 Circle works great!
> Message-ID:
> <CA+_O4RoK6RbeaZ18YuXrRiVJr+s=sdQxoXwtXK5amp5PN50ksA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> I completely agree with you Jim, AB3CV.
>
> I am in more or less the same situation as you, too little footprint for
> several serious beverages, single or phased, but instead the W1EW / VE6WZ 9
> circle with only 120ft diameter is really an improvement here on a little
> footprint. Steve, VE6WZ has done so many great YouTube videos, not only on
> the 9 circle subject, but other TopBand issues.
> By the way I am using my 9 circle in diversity RX mode on the transceiver
> with other small receive antennas, as short beverages, Bog's and DHDL, it
> works great.
> Sure long Beverage (too long for my property), would outperform the 9
> circle in the same direction, but then I need a serious big property to get
> the opportunity to switch directions from several bev's.
>
> Now we only need more activity on 160M CW, so we can have more fun, and
> reason to play with antennas, hi.
>
> Great job Steve, VE6WZ and ofcourse John, W1FV who optimized and
> developed the smaller 9 circle.
>
>
> Stig, OZ4MM
>
>
>> Den tir. 6. dec. 2022 kl. 05.49 skrev Joe <nss at mwt.net>:
>>
>> Any links to this system?
>>
>> Joe WB9SBD
>>
>>> On 12/4/2022 1:34 PM, Jim Miller wrote:
>>> Thanks to Steve's, VE6WZ, excellent YouTube videos, I decided to tackle a
>>> better RX antenna. I've been using a 2 element array phased by an NCC-2
>>> which is better than what I've had in the past (BOG, K9AY) but I wanted
>>> better.
>>>
>>> After evaluating my space available and finding it too small I asked my
>>> neighbor for seasonal use of their adjoining lot and they graciously
>>> agreed! My N, NW and W elements are on their property.
>>>
>>> Steve's videos include KiCad files for the combiner and preamps and he
>> was
>>> very helpful by email with any of my questions.
>>>
>>> I just completed the array last night and got it on the air and I was
>>> astonished by how well it worked.
>>>
>>> Of course it isn't going to create signals out of thin air but it is much
>>> quieter due to better RDF and the front to back is very impressive.
>> Strong
>>> signals on the waterfall just disappear when the antenna is reversed!
>>>
>>> I'm very happy to get such an improved antenna for 80 and 160 in a 120ft
>>> diameter circle!
>>>
>>> As a bonus I use it with PSTRotator and a USB controlled relay box so no
>>> manual switch box is required on my desk. Just a mouse click selects the
>>> desired direction or it can track my logger automatically.
>>>
>>> FYI, most of the cost is in the aluminum, the combiner and preamps were
>>> pretty cheap to build.
>>>
>>> Many thanks to VE6WZ!!
>>>
>>> 73
>>>
>>> jim ab3cv
>>> _________________
>>> Searchable Archives:http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
>> Reflector
>>>
>> _________________
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
>> Reflector
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 05:57:59 -0500
> From: Ed Parish <k1ep.list at gmail.com>
> To: Ron Spencer <ron.spencer at zoho.com>
> Cc: topband <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL 160
> Message-ID:
> <CAKR4uUOdqqn8ZkD=c8DQNev3tJtPz=YFEi6Bt_89fxeQZtrPYA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> The same thing happened to me. I occasionally get a dupe, but at one point,
> all of a sudden, I worked 10 or 12 dupes in a row. I finally had to QSY.
> Running unassisted, I couldn't tell what was spotted on my frequency, but I
> knew it was a busted call.
>
> reply to: K1EP at arrl.net
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2022, 23:47 Ron Spencer via Topband <topband at contesting.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Re Packet and the contest
>>
>>
>> May not be of interest to everyone.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sat evening around 0010 or so, had been running with a nice rate. Then a
>> dupe. And another. And yet another. This continued for around 15 minutes
>> until I finally QSY'd to escape.
>>
>>
>>
>> My guess of what happened: someone spotted me but with an incorrect call.
>> On all those using packet, a new call popped up. They clicked on it, dumped
>> in their call. Typically I work all dupes and, for the first few did but,
>> as the volume grew, I replied with their call, mine and "B4". Most went
>> away but a few insisted on a Q.
>>
>>
>>
>> In addition to showing how far our hobby has sunk, isn't it the
>> responsibility of the calling station to actually copy the call sign? Many
>> of the stations that duped me were very recognizable stations. Again,
>> guessing, they were running SO2R, clicked on the spot, called and expected
>> a quick Q. NEVER bothering to check accuracy of packet spot. Is it a valid
>> contact if you don't copy the actual call sign? Even if the call was
>> correct on packet. Or are we moving towards letting the computer do most of
>> the work?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure would be interesting if more contests were like the Stew Perry where
>> no spotting assistance is allowed. You have to actually copy the
>> information...... Yes, I know. A radical idea.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> N4XD
>> Sent using https://www.zoho.com/mail/
>> _________________
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
>> Reflector
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 07:42:31 -0500
> From: <ws6x.ars at gmail.com>
> To: "'Ron Spencer'" <ron.spencer at zoho.com>, "'topband'"
> <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: Cluster Spots and the ARRL 160
> Message-ID: <000601d90970$3552db70$9ff89250$@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Ron,
> And I thought it was just me. I too, had to resort to S&P because of the number of dupes. In 9 hrs. of operating, I had 16 total, plus another 4 where the operator caught themselves and said, "SRI." I have never seen anything like it. I had a K2 who called me on Sat evening for a dupe, and 4 minutes later called me again!
> Like you, I figured it was bad cluster spots. However, I searched the database for the usual blown calls -- WI6X, WS6K, WH6X and WS7X. To my surprise, I can't find a single spot with any of these variations.
> I agree: several of these callers were well-known, competent contest operators. Most I had worked dozens of times.
> For 160M tests, I have long since adjusted my callsign in the N1MM text scripts. I add a half-space before the "S" and slow the "S" down by 2 wpm. In the past, this has always served me well. But not in this test.
>> From this QTH I had lots of QRN and rapid, deep QSB. I even slowed my sending by 2 wpm from Sat evening on. That did not seem to do the trick.
> Besides the usual wide key-clickers, I also heard an unusual number of signals breaking up. Some to the point of being nearly uncopiable. Was this strange atmospheric condx? Was this what was bugging my signal?
> I'm curious if others experienced the same stuff.
> Jim - WS6X
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topband <topband-bounces+ws6x.ars=gmail.com at contesting.com> On Behalf Of Ron Spencer via Topband
> Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 10:55 AM
> To: topband <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: ARRL 160
>
> Re Packet and the contest
> May not be of interest to everyone.
> Sat evening around 0010 or so, had been running with a nice rate. Then a dupe. And another. And yet another. This continued for around 15 minutes until I finally QSY'd to escape.
>
> My guess of what happened: someone spotted me but with an incorrect call. On all those using packet, a new call popped up. They clicked on it, dumped in their call. Typically I work all dupes and, for the first few did but, as the volume grew, I replied with their call, mine and "B4". Most went away but a few insisted on a Q.
>
> In addition to showing how far our hobby has sunk, isn't it the responsibility of the calling station to actually copy the call sign? Many of the stations that duped me were very recognizable stations. Again, guessing, they were running SO2R, clicked on the spot, called and expected a quick Q. NEVER bothering to check accuracy of packet spot. Is it a valid contact if you don't copy the actual call sign? Even if the call was correct on packet. Or are we moving towards letting the computer do most of the work?
>
> Sure would be interesting if more contests were like the Stew Perry where no spotting assistance is allowed. You have to actually copy the information...... Yes, I know. A radical idea.
>
> Ron
> N4XD
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 09:15:07 -0500
> From: Pete Smith N4ZR <pete.n4zr at gmail.com>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL 160
> Message-ID: <863f416c-a9cc-c39a-23b9-67618eccfcf1 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> I had 598 QSOs in CQWW CW (10M) and 420 in the ARRL 160 CW, about 85
> percent S&P (assisted), and don't recall a single instance where an
> incorrect spot led me even to think about calling a station who wasn't
> really there.? N1MM's Spectrum Display shows previously-worked stations,
> so it would be glaringly obvious when spots for K3LPL and W3LPL showed
> up on the same frequency. I didn't see it happen.
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR,for the N1MM Team
> Check out our web server at
> <https://reversebeacon.net/main.php>.
> For spots, please use your favorite
> "retail" DX cluster.
>
>> On 12/5/2022 10:55 AM, Ron Spencer via Topband wrote:
>> Re Packet and the contest
>>
>>
>> May not be of interest to everyone.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sat evening around 0010 or so, had been running with a nice rate. Then a dupe. And another. And yet another. This continued for around 15 minutes until I finally QSY'd to escape.
>>
>>
>>
>> My guess of what happened: someone spotted me but with an incorrect call. On all those using packet, a new call popped up. They clicked on it, dumped in their call. Typically I work all dupes and,? for the first few did but, as the volume grew, I replied with their call, mine and "B4". Most went away but a few insisted on a Q.
>>
>>
>>
>> In addition to showing how far our hobby has sunk, isn't it the responsibility of the calling station to actually copy the call sign? Many of the stations that duped me were very recognizable stations. Again, guessing, they were running SO2R, clicked on the spot, called and expected a quick Q. NEVER bothering to check accuracy of packet spot. Is it a valid contact if you don't copy the actual call sign? Even if the call was correct on packet. Or are we moving towards letting the computer do most of the work?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure would be interesting if more contests were like the Stew Perry where no spotting assistance is allowed. You have to actually copy the information...... Yes, I know. A radical idea.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> N4XD
>> Sent usinghttps://www.zoho.com/mail/
>> _________________
>> Searchable Archives:http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 07:31:33 -0800
> From: Tree <tree at kkn.net>
> To: 160 <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: Stew Perry coming in 11 days
> Message-ID:
> <CAKF9HhatQv4YHuctArr+_ShMNYgrYgG=tAsKDamNNHaiZbT4Yg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Due to the timing of New Year's Eve, the Stew Perry will move up to the
> weekend before the holidays this year. That would be on December 17/18th.
>
> We understand that this is a bad time for some people - and perhaps a
> better time for some others. Most of the time, the contest ends up being
> on the weekend between XMAS and New Year's, but this is the one exception.
>
> As you all know, this contest features a robust menu of plaques. Without
> much prodding at all, we already have nearly a full set of plaques
> sponsored. You can find the list here:
>
> Stew Perry TBDC Plaques (kkn.net)
> <https://www.kkn.net/stew/stew_plaques.html>
>
> If you were waiting for an announcement before sponsoring your plaque of
> choice - consider this that announcement. Please send me an email with the
> info on the plaque you want to sponsor. Payment is best via PayPal to this
> email address (tree at kkn.net). The current price is $65.
>
> The Boring Amateur Radio Club would like to thank Patrick, W7TMT, who is
> helping with shipping last year's plaques. These should be arriving in the
> next couple of weeks.
>
> 73 Tree N6TR / K7RAT
> tree at kkn.net
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Topband mailing list
> Topband at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Topband Digest, Vol 240, Issue 4
> ***************************************
More information about the Topband
mailing list