I'm shocked !
Paul, my heartfelt congratulations to you! I wish you health !
73! de Eugene RA0FF
http://www.qsl.net/ra0ff/
Tue, 20 Jan 2015 01:41:30 - от Paul Elliott p...@valornet.com:
Today I have the extremely good fortune to celebrate 78 years of being a
licensed ham. On a day late in
Just talked with Luc , ON4IA, on 15m here at 1400z. He asked me to let west
coast guys know that he will not be able to be on 80 160 LP today here at his
SS.
EP6 is sure proving tough to get on the lowbands here in the Midwest. Even the
high freq bands have been challenging.
73. . .Dave,
Hi Paul,
Congratulations on such effective staying power...! Good on you.
The SK column in our TCA magazine (put out by The Radio Amateurs of
Canada---our version of the ARRL) regularly lists the actual ages of those
Hams who have sadly vacated this earth, in favour of that great big Ham shack
But what if I order up a dry pair from the telephone company for an RX a
mile away. here his costs only $11 per month per mile and would provide
remote audio back to the shack with tranformer center tap to ground used
for limited frequency control. Is that in accordance with the rules?
Amile
On 1/20/2015 7:20 AM, Frank Davis wrote:
The contest rules dictate that e remote receiver controlled over the internet
is not permitted in the CQWW160 contest.
st that I have avoided this far.
Maybe if enough of us push for it we can have the rules modified to permit
remote receivers within
The contest rules dictate that e remote receiver controlled over the internet
is not permitted in the CQWW160 contest.
I have deployed a remote SDR at a seaside location within my home grid square
GN37. I did this specifically to improve my listening capability for 160M. The
setup and
This rule --while a good idea with the best of intentions-- was almost
certainly intended to help prevent cheating by using a remote receiver FAR
from a contest station's QTH. Much farther than 100 miles. And owned by
someone else.
So, how could using one's own, private remote receiving setup
Remote bases are now banned from DXCC as well.
Unfortunately, remotes are allowed by DXCC including the ones you access
with a credit card (e.g., RemoteHamRadio.com). In fact, you don't even need
a radio these days to get on Honor Roll. Not sure what satisfaction a guy
receives in getting
Frank. I'm with you 100%.
I have accomplished the same as you. Set up a remote listening site in a
friends back yard (he has several acres) specifically for 160M.I found this to
be a much cheaper alternative to buying a farm and leaving my spouse behind
(she is not leaving our present
Brethren,
why are there rules? In our case they were cset in order to create a reasonable
fair playground limits for the MAJORITY of participants. The majority still
falls into the conditions described in the rules.
To the remote RX/TX site owner - fellows, why don't you ask the rule-makers
With a remote receiver it is easy to listen on the band while you are
transmitting. It is much more difficult to run SO2R on a single band when
the transmit and receive antennas are on the same property. This gives
stations with remote receivers, even in the same geographical area, a big
Hello brethren,
I´m one of those who lives and operates from a noise-infested location. It is
within my abilities to build a remote station a few miles away. Yet, I ask you
and myself 'will it be of the same value? If I'm not happy with either TX or
RX, I can operate portable or rent a
What's the simplest way of setting up a remote RX site via the Internet?
Below is part of a question that I posted awhile back on an eham.net forum.
I was considering sharing my 580' long Beverage receiving antennas via a
Web SDR page, which can cover 360 degrees of the compass (on 160, at least)
Zero copy here in Iowa on 160 for the EP6 op. . . not even a hint A 160m Q
will be out of the question. Very, very weak signals on 80. . .probably not
strong enough to be workable. Signals on 40 are strong enough to be
copyable but still very weak. I think the highest S meter reading I've
Doug!
Agree 100% !!!
Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:46:00 -0600 от Doug Renwick ve...@sasktel.net:
This is what contesting is becoming. Based on comments made, why don't we
just get rid of the ham station, the towers, the antennas and work the
contest with the computer. Load all the DX, stations, and
I was at my farm over in SW MS this weekend for 3 days and never heard EP6T.
I talked to some friends in Oklahoma and they had the same reply. All we
hear are the east coast guys calling.
73,
Alan Clark, N5PA
Ellisville, MS
Email: n...@n5pa.com
URL: http://www.n5pa.com
_
Kudos Paul,
I know we all salute you.
73,
Gary
KA1J
I regret that my slow typing speed prevents my answering individually all
the kind responses I received to my post. I deeply appreciate your comments
and thank you for them.
73 Paul W5DM
_
Topband Reflector
On Tue,1/20/2015 2:46 PM, David Raymond wrote:
Zero copy here in Iowa on 160 for the EP6 op
So far, this group is a non-event out here in 6-land. I've never heard
them, few others have either, and no one from our DX club has said that
they worked them. This is starting to smell like another
Hello friends,
Greetings from Ecuador, where I moved and got the callsign HC1PF.
Finally I'm going to install my 160m TX antenna which will be guyed
with 5/16 and 3/16 STI Polyester rope just arrived from DX
Engineering.
But I have a dumb question: is it better to anchor it with the usual
steel
Regarding Rick Karlquist's commentary === where he says *. . . . Remote
bases are now banned from DXCC as well. This is the familiar pattern of
things that were OK for the elite, suddenly being banned once the great
unwashed obtain access. . . . .*
Back around 1978 I sent in a proposed article
That has kept me preplexed since the expedition began - not a single word in
the TB reflector. How come? Usually even a minor expedition with TB claims is
being widely discussed. I think everyone in NA, SA, OC hopes to log them
despite East EU wall and QRN/QRM issues fellows have been dealing
Alternatively, perhaps this is a reason to create a classic category, to
differentiate the boy and his radio contesters from the folks embracing newer
techniques and technology.
In general, I'm of the mind that if a proposed change increases fun / increases
participation, it ought to be
22 matches
Mail list logo
