[UK-CONTEST] RSGB 80m CC DATA

[Ian White GM3SEK]

G3VIP wrote:
>Steve GW4BLE and others
>
>A mere 24 Qs; was it just me?, conditions? - - or probably both!
>
>I called you several times during test, each time, when I went to rx 
>you were half way thru your next CQ. This happened to a few stations 
>heard calling you. You were not the only station I called and suffered 
>the same fate. Given that there was deep QSB on sigs, if you had 
>listened longer you might have worked more. I was only running 10 watts 
>so didn't expect to work some stations.
>
>The conditions on the band were terrible with rapid deep QSB, a station 
>15 miles from me was going from S9+ to noise level. Stations were still 
>using quick QSO EG "call 599 001 001". There so many stations asking 
>for repeats, a change in operating techniques, to suit the conditions, 
>might have resulted in more QSO's.
>Guess there will be lot of points lost for wrong info in logs.
>
>11 Qs - 10watts to dipole at 30 ft. Best DX SP3GAX.
>

Exactly like last week, the ionosphere chose just the moment of the 
contest to throw a wobbly. From here, phase distortion made decoding 
very rough at the beginning of the contest, especially on the high-angle 
G stations. More distant stations seemed better, and fortunately it 
seemed to clear up later.

It was hard to judge what level of repeats to use, because it varied 
from QSO to QSO, and even from moment to moment. Finished with 46, all 
RTTY and still missed quite a few, but there will probably be some 
busted calls and serials in there.

One peculiar thing was that after sending an exchange or asking for a 
repeat, there were some long, long... very... long... pauses before some 
stations came back. Even though on-screen copy may be garbled, it's hard 
to miss when the other station drops carrier, so that's your cue to 
transmit. It makes me wonder how many people work RTTY with no sound on 
at all?



-- 

73 from Ian GM3SEK