Congratulations!  Sounds like fun!  73 de --Bill, KG5FQX

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Michael Rapp via BVARC <[email protected]>
wrote:

> CQ WW RTTY WPX Contest
>
> Call: KT5MR
> Operator(s): KT5MR
> Station: KT5MR
>
> Class: SOAB LP
> QTH: STX
> Operating Time (hrs): 16
>
> Summary:
>  Band  QSOs
> ------------
>    80:   43
>    40:  114
>    20:  108
>    15:   74
>    10:    4
> ------------
> Total:  343  Prefixes = 188  Total Score = 131,036
>
> Wow that was a ridiculous amount of fun!
>
> This was sort of a casual-serious effort from me, more on the casual side
> than the serious side (I enjoy sleeping).  My primary goals (other than
> having fun) were to operate assisted for the first time and gain experience
> with that and to see if I got the kinks out of my 40 meter antenna (I
> didn't), and see how best to utilize my dipoles and verticals when I had
> them available for the same band.
>
> Operating assisted was interesting.  It certainly is not magic and
> presents its own challenges when operating with low and compromised
> antennas as I have.  Just because someone is spotted does not mean I can
> hear them, even if I had the cluster trimmed down to just skimmer spots
> from W4 and W5 call areas.
>
> Just as in DXing, I seemed to get my best results if I stumbled upon a
> multiplier before they were spotted.
>
> Where operating assisted did make a difference is in helping me know when
> to make the transition from 15 to 20 and from 20 to 40 as they started to
> close down and the number of multipliers moved as the day went on.
>
> One bizarre situation I had to deal with was constantly switching between
> my dipole and my vertical when working Europe and especially Japan on 15
> meters.  I could hear far better on my dipole, but he couldn't hear me.  If
> I switched to the vertical, he could here me but the print was garbled on
> my end.  I gave that antenna switch a workout on fifteen meters.
>
> Also on fifteen meters on Saturday afternoon I managed a decent bit of
> running.  That was exhilarating.  Running is where it is at.  That was the
> second highlight of the contest, which is very cool for me as when I
> started contesting I was absolutely terrified of running a frequency, let
> alone ever thinking I could with my compromised antennas.
>
> The highlight of the contest for me, hands down, was stumbling across V55V
> -- Namibia -- on 40 meters last night with no takers!  What happened next
> was such a comedy of errors that I am absolutely astonished I got him in
> the log.
>
> I have a problem with RFI on 40 meters and I *thought* I had solved it as
> long as I keep my rig at 50 watts or less.  If I use more power than that,
> I risk the rig locking up, the Signalink locking up, the computer locking
> up, or all three!
>
> So I throw out my call to the lonely V55V...and my rig locks up!  I do a
> quick reset and call again....the Signalink locks up!  Ack, I guess the RFI
> is still here.  I quickly dial down the power to 40 watts.  To my
> astonishment, V55V still has no callers.  I transmit again....and the rig
> locks up!  I forgot to save the new power setting!
>
> At this point, I am sure I have lost him.  The hoards will be upon him and
> he will have slipped through my fingers. I reset the rig, save the power
> this time and throw my call out.  He comes back to me....with my call
> wrong!  I resend my call one final time...he comes back with the correct
> call, we complete the exchange, and with my hair a little grayer, V55V is
> in my log. :)
>
> (Did I mention that my 40 meter antenna is no higher than 16 feet off the
> ground?!)
>
> What's next is to see if I can come up with some temporary antennas for
> contest weekends that I can get higher than my permanent, but necessarily
> low/stealthy antennas.  Before I can even begin to think about an
> amplifier, I need to improve my receive dramatically.
>
> Oh, and if I can get a confirmation from V55V, that will put me -- finally
> -- at 100 entities confirmed (DXCC!).
>
> 73,
> --
> /*/-=[Michael / KT5MR]-=/*/
>
> _______________________________________________
> BVARC mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org
>
>
_______________________________________________
BVARC mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org

Reply via email to