Topband: Spurious transmissions on 1830 khz by CKTB (610 kHz)

>>Maybe some of our two trillion dollar aid package can be sent to Canada. Perhaps a mere $100,000 would let them replace their troublesome guy wires with commercial grade Phillystran. This pandemic is very serious business. I would not waste any money uselessly. Tragically, a lot more money

Topband: Last comment.

I'll not ask to see a scan of the card because that may not be conclusive and it's not my 'job' to decide, but I'm still curious to know the reason for a QSL card "appraisal" request if not to ask for credit. It simply does not 'compute' that a ham who has pursued the number 1 spot for so long

Re: Topband: DXCC Committee.

On 2020-03-23 17:45, George Dubovsky wrote: Perhaps you never heard of P5RS7. I've got a card. Yes, I did. The term "Slim" has a different meaning then. To me, the "Slim" is the 'funny' guy that answers the deserving pretending to be the DX. In the case you describe, it was not a "Slim"

Topband: DXCC Committee.

>>>*IF*, before LoTW came on-line, a "Slim" sent a ham a confirmation card, and it was found to be bogus, would that disqualify the ham from any future admission to the DXCC or greater club ? This would give new meaning to the 'oldie' WFWL. I never heard of a "Slim" confirming a contact. I

Topband: DXCC Committe.

I was under the impression the DXCC desk disqualified the OP for suspecting that a doctored card had been submitted for a bogus contact. I was wrong, my apologies. There is no reason to disqualify a 'supplicant' simply for submitting a "mildly damaged" card. I'm waiting for the posting

Topband: DXCC Committe

>> 2) He did not submit a signed application but only asked for an opinion about the card. Why was an opinion needed? It was a DXCC accepted activation, was it not? Perhaps paper confirmation should no longer be accepted. Yes, collusion can easy beat any LoTW security, but it would avoid the

Topband: DXCC Committe.

For some reason the classic game Jenga comes to mind. 73 de Vince, VA3VF _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: Any experience with 2N3553?

Don, Thank you for confirming the eBay part is not the same as the one sourced from Digikey/Mouser. I have a couple from eBay (at a $1 a piece I could not resist LOL), and a bunch from Digikey. The eBay ones will be discarded immediately, before I get distracted and forget about it. I'm

Topband: Hi Z amplifiers for 160m

>>The design already has a 20 kA gas discharge tube and DC biased diode limiter for lightning and surge protection. It also has an optional (by internal link) diode limiter on the output so that it can be used by "weak" SDR receivers such as the SDRPlay RSP series that cannot take high RF

Topband: Hi Z amplifiers for 160m

>>>Mouser 601- 25-7630 or 601-25-7660 Thank you very much, Lee. My last Mouser order arrived...today! On the list for the next order. LOL 73 de Vince, VA3VF _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: Hi Z amplifiers for 160m

>>>Recently I've been asked by a radio contest group to see if I can redesign the YCCC Hi Z amplifier using modern components and using similar mounting arrangements to our Loop Antenna Amplifier. Hi Chris, Any updates on the loop antenna amplifier revisions you were working on a couple of

Topband: Hi Z amplifiers for 160m

>>>Use an F connector (a high quality one that can be torqued.) Can you point to a place that sells them. I became a 'fan' of F termination, but have recently had second thoughts because of the bulkhead connector's quality. Thanks and 73. Vince, VA3VF _ Searchable Archives:

Topband: RBN and cluster spots.

>>I can't even see how you configure RBN to only show signals from certain areas (like NA), so I have to put up with all the EU spots on RBN (which I'm not interested in) This is a 'limitation' with a lot of clusters, including RBN, AFAIK. Not sure whether they are the only, or even the best

Topband: Remote receiver deafness. Was: New Modes, Systems, etc

Some actual data from my 'deaf' receiver. WSPR on 2200M: 2020-01-02 03:12 K5DNL 0.137491 -21 -1 EM15lj 5 VA3VF FN25 2163 52 2019-12-31 03:16 NO3M 0.137520 -24 0 EN91wr 1 VA3VF FN25 584 43 2019-12-31 03:14 N1BUG 0.137438 -8 0 FN55mf 1

Topband: Remote receiver deafness. Was: New Modes, Systems, etc

I had private correspondence about this, so here is additional information. Some of these remote receivers do have 'bad' antennas, others not so. For 'local' reception, one does not need much. I have an AirSpy HF+ SDR with a 'bad' Mini-Whip antenna in the backyard, at only 4 meters above the

Topband: New Modes, Systems, etc

>>>Those are exactly those deaf sdrs I mentioned, just useless. This does not make any sense at all!!! If the receiver is deaf, like 'door knob' deaf, fair enough, but it wouldn't be online. Well, you never know, hams are a 'funny' bunch after all. They would put a 'deaf' receiver online, and

Topband: New Modes, Systems, etc

This is likely the only thing we agree on on this thread. The unethical use of remote receivers. >>This link can be found on the Internet : https://sdr.hu/ And unfortunately, open to licensed hams only since last week. Talk about facilitating bad pratices! SWLs were shut out, even though they

Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

>>I thought there was a contest version of FT-8 coming out soon ? I forget what it was to be labeled as. The current version of WSJT-X supports the following contests: NA VHF Contest; EU VHF Contest; ARRL Field Day, technically not a contest; RTTY Roundup. To activate

Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband.

>>1) you need a modern(relatively new)station How modern? Until getting an IC-7300 I used an IC-718. Before getting a Signalink USB interface to go with it, I used dubbing cables between the radio and the computer. Took some 'skill' not to TX garbage with that setup. Don't tell me now that

Topband: New Group for Topband Digital.

It's unfortunate that it has come to this, but I commend your initiative. That said, you can bet money that some of the same critics will join the new list to stir the pot there as well. 73 de Vince, VA3VF _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband

Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband.

The FT8 comet is back: 1) It's still legal; 2) It's still not mandatory to use it; 3) It only 'wastes' up to 3kHz on each band; 4) Lots of people are having fun with it. . . . I can think of so many of Yoga Bera's sayings to reply to the negative reactions. As for an FT8 contest, they are

Topband: Possible 160m propagation indicator: lightningmaps.org?

Quiet conditions here as well. Contacts using JT9 are happening on 600M. Will monitor 160M. RX only. TX on Topband next year, if all goes well. 73 de Vince, VA3VF _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: Possible 160m propagation indicator: lightningmaps.org?

Mike, Thank you for the post, very timely for me. I have been exploring the VLF and LF spectrum (RX only) for a few weeks now, after spending some time and money acquiring the capability. As far as hamradio goes, there is life in the 2200 and 600M bands. Regarding lightning strikes and

Topband: No comments.

41/51 dB...and some say propagation is bad right now. This makes changing 17M QSLs to 160M so primitive. LOL The sad part is that it'll only get worse. 73 de Vince, VA3VF _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: KV4FZ FT8

>>>Decoded at 2216z 3:16pm Local time here in Colorado. Crazy! A remote TX in the CONUS? For the humour impaired: It was a joke. 160, but 80 also, seem to be on fire lately. HNY to all! 73 de Vince, VA3VF _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband

Topband: Wire size at base of 160M inverted L

Pete, See the table at the following link: http://www.ohmslawcalculator.com/awg-wire-chart 73 de Vince, VA3VF _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: DX conditions and activity.

Hi Steve, >>73, es lets hope the great conditions persist! Sure, but you worked hard for it. The station you built is the enabler, more than the conditions, I think. 73 de Vince, VA3VF _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160.

Frank, >>I have no plans to replace my 30,000 feet of radials... I'm a 'metric' guy. If my faltering brain is still functional, this is close to 10 km. All for a 160M antenna? I just placed an order for 200 ft of wire. Even with the 50% off special, I cannot imagine the 'bill' for 30,000

Topband: Measuring Common Mode Chokes.

Very interested in this discussion, as I embark on my common mode choke 'journey'. Got the toroids, and a NanoVNA. 73 de Vince, VA3VF _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: Propagation (VY0).

>>How about VY0ERC? They are on the radio a lot. My guess as well. VY0ERC was very active last week on other bands that I monitored. 73 de Vince, VA3VF _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: Was: COSMIC RAY UPDATE

>>One good thing about this is that my TV time has gone to almost zero... Are TVs still available? All I have is a 50" Netflix display. The family says it should also 'receive' Amazon Prime. LOL >>"When we were young, we tried to sneak out of the house to go to a party. These days, we try

Topband: G3YRO 160m Receiving Loop

Hello, >> http://www.crosscountrywireless.net/loop_antenna_amplifier.htm I was about to purchase this new antenna, when I saw a YouTube video showing it in comparison to the Wellbrook 1530LN, the Bonito ML200, and the el-cheapo ebay MLA-30.

Re: Topband: FT-8 My Recent Experience

Really sad to see that this 'comet' is already back in Topband 'orbit'. Do we have new list members, by any chance? People that are hearing/reading about FT8 on topband for the first time? Nobody went to Dayton last week? What about the Topband Dinner? I was there, and FT8 was not an issue.

Topband: FT8 vs other modes - my numbers.

Tim, You wrote in your reply to Mike, W0MU: >...you are buying into a myth that both supporters and detractors of FT8 perpetuate. The myth that FT8 is superior for DX'ing, to other modes. With all due respect, I think you are 'buying' into the 'red herring' that some are using to 'bad

Topband: On FT8, noise bandwidths, filters, and signal vs noise.

Tim, I'm a QLF CW operator. Yes, that bad. :^) What you described below is exactly what I go through during a contest. Unless I switch back and forth between narrow and wide, I cannot listen for very long on narrow. For the wider Topband audience: Set the BW to 3 kHz, this is how wide the

Topband: Observations on a base-loaded 70 ft vertical.

Hi Jim, Beautifully done. A work of art. 73 de Vince, VA3VF _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: Even thought this never works...

Tree and Mike, With all due respect. Has anybody crossed the line? Any personal attacks? This is an issue relevant to Topband. If it's not discussed here, where will it be? Has the list turned into something like a major TV station newscast, where only catch phrases and punch lines, lasting

Re: Topband: WebSDR Cheating.

How would you convince the owner to add a 5 second pause. We are not dealing with ham operated remote receivers necessarily. Peer pressure may work on a ham, but on other people, it would be limitation of that person's freedom. Receiving capabilities are not regulated anywhere, outside of

Topband: cheating

I may be missing something here. The way I interpret the excerpt below is that it's ok to use remote stations, within the same DXCC entity or outside of it. 'Station' here meaning TX and RX together, or up to 500 meters apart. I would add that the remote, in addition to being legally licensed,

Topband: WebSDR Cheating.

Perhaps one way to try and get back some control is force all websdr's to enforce a full amateur call sign to its subscribers and then to make the dbases available for scrutinity sothat the logs can be compared to say the DXCC mechanisms. This is just a thought and worth chewing

Topband: WebSDR use or not.

I mentioned yesterday the tagline that an SWLer uses on his logs. I just noticed that he has updated it. It now says: "All logged by my ears, on my receiver, in real time & without the aid of a computer!" 73 de Vince, VA3VF _ Topband Reflector Archives -

Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use.

>>>Like Paul, I seriously doubt that Kanti is using a remote receiver. Well... he confirmed it. Granted that it may not have been used for all QSOs. Based on the posted correspondence, it's clear he is not doing anything with ill intent. It's either need, or his way of enjoying the hobby. Other

Topband: WebSDR use and other comments.

Like most of you, my interest in radio started with a tube radio/turntable combo, listening to shortwave broadcasting stations back in the late 60s. Unlike some of you, my SWLing interest remained after getting a ham license in 1980. WebSDR has been an issue in SWLing circles for many years.

Re: Topband: FT8 discussion

With a 1 minute cycle, where only 46 seconds of it is payload, like in JT65 and JT9, a CW id is possible, and indeed available, to those that want to activate it. Not feasible with a 15 seconds cycle where 13 seconds is payload. If CW id becomes mandatory, it may be the end of FT8, to the delight

Re: Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM

I respect your right to enjoy not enjoying FT8, or any other mode for that matter. I'll side with you every time this right is challenged. Bottom line is, nature hates vacuum. If a section of a band is not used most of the time, it may be 'adopted' by another SIG. There is strength in numbers,

Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM? :^)

>>No one 'owns" a band segment on 160M under what is a VOLUNTARY >>BANDPLAN - and the band segments do "flex" in contests when there is >>so much activity to warrant the overlap that naturally occurs. The concept described above may have worked from time immemorial, up to, and excluding, the

Re: Topband: A way to keep old school modes vibrant alongside FT-8

Hi Steve, Thank you for your email. There are many real and/or perceived unfair situations in hamradio. I don't think this issue can be resolved without 'upsetting' one group or another. The successful SSB operator will continue to 'shine' in the DXCC Phone section. The CW in the CW

Re: Topband: More on radials

Hi Gary, This is the first time I hear about the DOG. Would you have online references about it? I'll Google it, but if you have goods ones handy, please send them to me privately (unless others here are interested as well). Thanks and 73. Vince, VA3VF On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:00 AM, kd9sv

Re: Topband: subject

I agree! This thread about asking the moderator to stop the other thread has run its course. I hope we won't have a thread now asking for the thread that asked for the other thread to be terminated started. Enjoy the nice discussion about radials. 73 de Vince, VA3VF On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at

Re: Topband: FT8: Making it too easy?

. This is a great hobby, enjoy it!!! 73 de Vince, VA3VF On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Mark K3MSB <mark.k3...@gmail.com> wrote: > Only if they used a credit card and a remote station that they didn't > build! > > 73 Mark K3MSB > > On Oct 26, 2017 2:28 PM, "DXer" <hfdx

Re: Topband: FT8: Making it too easy?

he difference in rolling up to the ice-cream hop in your 1962 > Coupe DeVille convertible that you just cut a check for, or rolling up in > one that you’ve spent years restoring? > > I think that pretty much answers your question. > > 73 Mark K3MSB > > > > On O

Topband: FT8: Making it too easy?

For those that say FT8 makes it too easy to win awards, climb the DXCC ladder, or make it into the HR. May I ask what the reason is for going to the trouble, and expense, of purchasing the best transceivers, installing towers, beams, and amps? How is your operating enhanced, if not by making it

Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)

That's right. Make sure to disable PSKReporter in WSJT-X, and Hamspot.net in JTAlert. This way you won't look bad saying one thing, and doing another. LOL 73 de Vince, VA3VF On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:35 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote: > > I know that 3Y0X will have the ability to

Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)

Mixed, as per one of the definitions: containing a mixture of both favorable and negative elements. FT8 belongs in it, it's a favorable element. LOL 73 de Vince, VA3VF On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Nick Maslon - K1NZ wrote: > Hi Dale, > > My comments were more aimed at the

Topband: Fwd: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)

Not sure of to think of this. Was it another veiled dig at a mode you don't enjoy? 73 de Vince, VA3VF On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Steve Ireland wrote: > > This ‘new wave’ digital award could have a new cool, 21st century-looking > certificate (are holograms 21st

Re: Topband: FT8.

Thanks, JC. Fair enough. I'm not a fan of SSTV. It's not watching paint dry, but watching the picture being painted. After monitoring the mode for a few days, I did not understand what some of the pictures had to do with the hobby. I'm not a fan of APRS. Somehow I don't understand the kick some

Re: Topband: FT8.

"What concerns me is the fact that the technical level of the new ham is declining too fast. There is the feeling that "GOOGLE" can explain everything..." That's an important point, but Google is not necessarily a bad thing, laziness is. The problem is that some people won't even put an

Re: Topband: FT8.

ned yet, on a large/noticeable scale. If and when that happens, I'll be the first to say FT8 zombie bots roaming the bands are bad . On 10/25/2017 7:57 PM, DXer wrote: That's one way to enjoy RTTY. Others use GRITTY. Try leaving FT8 unattended, and see how many QSOs it makes by itself? 73

Re: Topband: FT8.

Fundamentally speaking, radio is RF between two antennas. Whatever is 'pumped' into the TX antenna and 'pulled' out of the RX antenna, is not radio, it's payload. To say FT8 is not amateur radio is incorrect. 73 de Vince, VA3VF _ Topband Reflector Archives -

Re: Topband: FT8.

"Additionally, traditional RTTY is still a "hear it" mode. I actually listen to the tones and while obviously I can't decode them by ear, I can certainly tune them by ear. Furthermore, MMTTY, which I use, decodes one signal at a time, the one I tune in and respond to. So, at least in my

Topband: FT8.

I'm very surprised by some of the comments here. I'm still going through the messages, but wanted to make a few comments already. In no particular order: 1) How is computer to computer FT8 different from computer to computer RTTY, a very popular mode among DXers and contesters? 2) CW and

Topband: Some Operating Observations from JT5DX de K1ZM/VY2ZM

A wonderful report. Thank you very much, Jeff. 73 de Vince, VA3VF _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: to JT or not to JT

Ok...I guess that's a hint to shut up. 73 de Vince, VA3VF QRT. On 2017-05-21 5:07 PM, Dale Putnam wrote: Have a great day, --... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy "Actions speak louder than words" 1856 - Abraham Lincoln _ Topband Reflector Archives -

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

Mark, Very well said, but unless you consider the JT modes in a different class still than RTTY and PSK, except for mixed mode awards/contests, there is already a level playing field. Mixed is, well, mixed, but everything else is separate already. One cannot apply for an SSB award with JT

Re: Topband: to JT or not to JT

QRP is not a mode per se, but after alot of 'pressure', the ARRL relented and now issues a DXCC QRP award, albeit unnumbered, and outside of the mainstream DXCC. Nobody has been forced to apply for one, as far as I know. :^) 73 de Vince, VA3VF On 2017-05-21 2:28 PM, DXer wrote: Hi JC

Re: Topband: to JT or not to JT

Hi JC, That's true, but it is an endorsement for WAS. And since the DXCC categories were not delivered to us a part of the 10 commandments, it can change at any moment. :^) 73 de Vince, VA3VF On 2017-05-21 2:09 PM, JC wrote: JT is not CW and not SSB, why it is not a category by itself.

Re: Topband: P.O.A.

And don't forget remotes. While they may not be feasible from every location and operation, it allows the DXpedioner to be at both ends of the same QSO. 73 de Vince, VA3VF On 2017-05-21 12:17 PM, DXer wrote: Hi Paul, Think about an eventual P5 activation, a mega one, with lots of ops

Re: Topband: P.O.A.

Hi Paul, Think about an eventual P5 activation, a mega one, with lots of ops. The likelyhood that many of them will not have P5 already confirmed, is a real possibility. They will be there making a lot of people happy, but not adding that ATNO themselves, unless another ham operate from their

Re: Topband: P.O.A.

Hi Barry, Very early on, I decided that any valid personal QSO, would have to be made not only by me, but using my own station. This decision has kept me off the air for long stretches of time, and that was, and still is, fine with me. I don't have a problem with those thinking differently.

Re: Topband: N7QT on "Increasing the Rate of the JT Modes"

Hi Larry, People are still debating about when to consider a QSO complete. As you mentioned, if you received a report, and sent a report back, the QSO is in theory complete. However, there is no confirmation that the other station received your report, hence the use of RRR. Others want

Re: Topband: N7QT on "Increasing the Rate of the JT Modes"

Thank you for the link, Tim. The first ideas/suggestions mentioned in the article are being used by an increasing number of operators. JT65-HF-HB9HQX and JTDX helped that by adding variations to the original standard messages. There was some discussion when these variations were introduced,

Re: Topband: Stone age arguments

Should have said he wrote this tongue in check, as the way some people think/see the hobby. Vince, VA3VF On 2017-05-20 5:23 PM, DXer wrote: Roger, There is a little discussion going on on eHam right now, about the use o DX Clusters, and other tools. Being attached to the past, fighting

Re: Topband: Stone age arguments

Roger, There is a little discussion going on on eHam right now, about the use o DX Clusters, and other tools. Being attached to the past, fighting progress, etc etc ...the standard good natured 'circular arguments' we see repeated from time to time, like a periodic comet. :^) AA6YQ

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

and determined. To each his own. Work whatever mode works for you. Does using ssb rather than cw change the value of the Q? Only in the eye of the beholder. Not so much to the been there done that kinda guy. Make this a great day Dale On May 19, 2017, at 10:03 PM, DXer <hfdxmoni...@gmail.com>

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

Mike, I'm most interested in hearing more about your conversation with K1JT about JT9. I've been away from the WSJTGroup for some time, and may have missed any new info about the mode. In theory, JT9 should be the chosen LF mode. A couple of dBs more sensitve, and about 10% the BW of JT65.

Re: Topband: To JT or not to JT

Right! When we see some of issues that are popping up now, such as remotes being used outside ones entity but claimed as inside, to argue about which mode is worthy or not, is misguided. In addition, is not like 160 is a crowded band. :^) 73 de Vince, VA3VF On 2017-05-20 1:25 PM, rick

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

>>>To me, just not the challenge of dxing mostly cw and ssb. Fair enough. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Another angle. I find JT65 to be a very relaxing mode. Which other mode allows one to read and write emails, go get a coffee, answer 'nature's call', etc. while making

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

>>10 Watts is considered high power on the digital modes. Is using 1000 >>Watts on 160m (+20dB) and 250Hz receive filters (+10dB) on both ends >>of a CW QSO more challenging than 10W on JT65 on the same link? >>Perhaps not. JT modes are weak signal modes, not necessarily low power/QRP modes.

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

JC, >>I just don't like JT modes. I'm way behind reading messages. Please disregard my last one. As we say in our mother tongue 'gosto nao se discute'. :^)) 73 de Vince, VA3VF _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

JC, >>The digital mode is a choice, only a choice to avoid the hard work to >>enjoy a DX on 160m. Amateur radio is basically about RF, not modes. Modes, beginning with code, were and are being added as technology permits. 73 de Vince, VA3VF _ Topband Reflector Archives -

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

>>>And MY 2 cents...the ONLY criteria for ANY ARRL (or other) awards is >>>very simple: If both stations AGREE they have made a QSO, then they >>>DID have a valid QSO...regardless how/when/mode/assist/etc is >>>used.There is no third-party judge required or invited... You didn't really

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

>>> WSJT-X 1.7.0 There is JTDX, based on WSJT-X, but with some additional tweaks for the HF user. 73 de Vince, VA3VF _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

>>My question was about the feeling of doing a CW and a JT65 QSo on >>topband. I worked a new one on JT65 and really didn´t feel the >>excitement working it as I did with any new one on CW And my question is about the feeling of doing a JT65 QSO, or nothing, on topband. :^) 73 de Vince,

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

>>>Maybe JT65 is too young to have good statistics, but how many DXCC >>>entities have ever been activated on JT65 on 160M? It'll never reach the levels of SSB/CW/RTTY, if that's what you are getting to, for the simple reason that DXpeditions to rare places would be crazy to spend precious

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

I did JT65 on 160, but really what´s the challenge? Is amazing when you did a CW qso, switching between RX antennas, filters and radio adjustments to pull out a callsign I don´t know what people than been on topband for decades feel about that 73. Jorge CX6VM/CW5W

Topband: Top Band and JT65

>>>I cannot understand why JT9 is used so little on 160 thru 20. JT65 >>>is a VHF mode. Not really, there are different 'flavours' of JT65, on HF it's JT65A. As for JT9, there reason is that JT65-HF, and its derivatives, such as the one maintained by HB9HQX, is still used by a substantial

Re: Topband: Made it! 80 Years a Ham

Paul, Thank YOU for this wonderful message. Please accept my heartfelt congratulations! 73 de Vince, VA3VF On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:34 AM, PAUL M ELLIOTT wrote: > Made it! 19 January 2017, is the 80th anniversary of my first ham license, > Class C operating privileges

Re: Topband: DXing on the Edge - Ordering Information for International Amateurs

Another option is now available. Book Depository, which I believe belongs to Amazon, has it for CDN$27.02/US$20.72/EUR$19.48/GBP$16.48, including shipping worldwide. http://www.bookdepository.com/Dxing-on-the-Edge-Jeffrey-Briggs/9781483586458 Again, no connection, just helping out. 73 de

Re: Topband: Fence charger

K4XS wrote: >>>Looking for a nice RFI quiet fence charger for my new pig fence. Any >>>recommendations. W8HW replied: >>>It is my understanding that animals learn not to touch the fence after a hit or two so it is not likely that they will ever know the fence is shut off for a short time.

Re: Topband: DXing on the Edge - Ordering Information for International Amateurs

Amazon Canada lists it for CD$27.03, but you need $35 minimum order for free shipping now. Oh, and it says 'Usually ships within 1 to 3 months'. 73 de Vince, VA3VF On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:28 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote: > Has anyone managed to snag the book at Target.com for

Re: Topband: Radio World; Noise Floor; Where do we go from here?

*From:* Topband <topband-boun...@contesting.com> on behalf of DXer <hfdxmoni...@gmail.com> *Sent:* Sunday, December 18, 2016 7:42 PM *To:* topband@contesting.com *Subject:* Re: Topband: Radio World; Noise Floor; Where do we go from here

Re: Topband: Radio World; Noise Floor; Where do we go from here?

Off-topic...This is how they realize shareholder's value quickly. :^) 73 de Vince, VA3VF On 2016-12-18 7:31 PM, CJ Johnson - WT2P wrote: How about companies stop making cheap crap to cut corners. wt2p _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: New Yahoogroups DX list.

I cannot find any DX list currently active. There are websites providing DX information, but not a mailing list per se. In case there are others interested in the topic, I just created a DX list on Yahoogroups. It's called DX-IS! To subscribe, send a message to:

Topband: Fwd: ET7L DXCC approval

> MHz. The guy didn't even TRY to make it look good - couldn't believe it. > > > > -- > > 73, > > Mike Cizek WØVTT > > > > -Original Message- > From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of DXer > Sent: Tuesday, December 0

Re: Topband: ET7L DXCC approval

This is going to be a much bigger issue than the adultered 18M QSLs. :^) I don't know how easy it is to detect the use of a remote RX, unless a P5 contact at 12 noon local time is claimed. :^)) 73 de Vince, VA3VF On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Johann Bruinier wrote: > >

Re: Topband: ARRL 160

Thanks, Mike...it's all clear now. 73 de Vince, VA3VF On 2016-12-05 6:18 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote: Yes you have to manually edit the Cabrillo file with notepad or similar. On 12/5/2016 3:54 PM, DXer wrote: If I understood this correctly, the QSO will not count for/against you

Re: Topband: ARRL 160

K6MR wrote: Not sure about other loggers: mine (DXLog.net) has a hotkey that marks the Q in real time. > Ken K6MR From: DXer<mailto:hfdxmoni...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 5, 2016 2:54 PM To: topband@contesting.com<mailto:topband@contesting.com> Subject: Re: Topband: A

Re: Topband: ARRL 160

Talk about self-sacrifice. LOL If it's possible in CQ Contests, ARRL should implement it too. 73 de Vince, VA3VF On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Tom Haavisto wrote: > > > Another option would be to bust the other guys call (on purpose) in your > log. You take an extra

Re: Topband: ARRL 160

Please ignore my previous message asking how to unclaim a QSO. I asked after checking the ARRL site, and not finding the answer there. 73 de Vince, VA3VF On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Tree wrote: > There is no way to mark a QSO as unclaimed in the Cabrillo format. > > Either it

Re: Topband: coax soldering

That's exactly what I've been doing for some years now. I buy the cable already terminated with F connectors, and add BNC, PL259, or N adapters as required. Not the most efficient as far as minimizing losses is concerned, but terminating cable is not something I enjoy. I don't know how this

  1   2   >