I just looked at the list of operators. There are at least four hardcore
CW operators among the crew. There may be others among the crew who are
proficient CW operators, but I am not familiar with everyone on the
roster. I suspect a lot of what is driving the high FT8 count are the
poor conditions brought about by our overactive sun.
FWIW, Friday night local (Saturday morning UTC), the team was working
the west coast USA on 160 and 80 CW. This was around 0900 UTC. They were
mostly Q5 on 80CW, but only Q5 on QSB peaks on 160.
It was frustrating to hear them with a respectable (but not loud) signal
last Thursday afternoon on 12 CW, working through this massive pileup of
really loud Europeans (the Euros were still loud here in Southern
California as late as ~2050 UTC). When the Europeans finally went away
so did CY9C's signal. They were still there according to the cluster
spots, but I couldn't hear a peep on their QRG. I had to settle for an
FT8 QSO on 10 meters this afternoon.
73, Mike W4EF/6 in DM14
On 9/1/2024 5:51 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:
Interesting that their original announcement said:
"CW will be emphasized but with a good mix of SSB, FT8 (using Super Fox) and RTTY."
If you look at Clublog stats, you'll see fewer than half of the Qs are on CW. Furthermore, 53% of the Qs are with EU, and 37% are with NA. I did a rough count once and EU had only 60% of the ham population of the US.
Climbing soapbox: I'm a member of NCDXF and two DX clubs that fund NCDXF and I have made
separate contributions to them from time to time. I also support INDEXA and often make generous
individual contributions to pending DXpeditions. Recent events are changing my perspective
about contributing before the fact. I have no illusion that my minor contributions will make
or break an expedition, but it's the only way I have to express disapproval of an operation.
Steps off soapbox.
Wes N7WS
On Sunday, September 1, 2024 at 08:57:35 AM MST, Steve Harrison
<k0xp@k0xp.com> wrote: ....If you look at their statistics as of 1600Z on 8/31,
you'll notice that
except 15m, they have more Qs listed on digital than both CW and SSB
combined. Someone out there has their priorities all screwed up, as well
as piss-poor band planning the whole way. I won't be contributing to a
WA4DAN-lead expedition again after this one unless there are some changes.
Steve, K0XP
On 9/1/2024 6:42 AM, Mike Fatchett W0MU wrote:
Could not hear CY9C at all last night on 160. Conditions changed or
something. Hoping for a 160 contact b4 they depart.
W0MU
On 8/31/2024 2:41 AM, Andree DL8LAS via Topband wrote:
Hey topbanders,
tonight it was possible to copyCY9C im DL.Their signal was in the
QRN and not really loud, but after a few calls they had my call
correctly in the log.Here a short video from CY9C on 160m.
CY9C 160m CW @ DL8LAS on my 300° beverage
73 Andy DL8LAS
www.dl8las.com
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
Reflector
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
Reflector
--
See my QRZ.com page at *https://www.qrz.com/db/K0XP*
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
| |
CY9C 160m CW @ DL8LAS on my 300° beverage
|
|
|
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
|