Is there still a DX window for ARRL DX 160 ?? It seems year after year I hear the same USA stations abusing the DX window. It seems many of these stations are in rare sections so they seem to get awa
6.1. The segment 1.830 to 1.835 should be used for intercontinental QSOs only. David Robbins K1TTT e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net web: http://www.k1ttt.net AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.
This is the year 2005. The theme is it is every man for himself regardless of who it effects. The only way a window is going to work is if the FCC/IARU impose restrictions. In 2005 gentleman's agreem
Gee, I thought honoring of the DX window was _better_ than in past years. Yes, there were violators, but seemed to me like fewer than I've heard previously. I tried to do my part by skipping W/VE sta
The DX windows on 75 and 160 were ignored in the CQWW Phone, SS Phone and last weekend during the ARRL 160. In each instance the 10Khz window was chock full of some "prominent" calls. To add to all t
I've always understood that being somewhat rare, altho located within the US... doesn't allow abuse. Although, running qrp did cause me to think about it... I must admit. And I wonder if some of the
On Dec 5, 2005, at 1:17 PM, <ku8e@bellsouth.net> <ku8e@bellsouth.net> wrote: For the purposes of the ARRL 160m contest, the window is 1830-1835 kHz. See Rule 6.1: "6.1. The segment 1.830 to 1.835 sho
Perhaps some of the DX Window interlopers were making an honest, fatigue-indiced mistake? Not everyone is used to vigorous mental activity at 3 AM local time. It didn't seem as bad as it's been in pa
I thought the DX window was 1830-1850 according to my YAESU Frequency/band chart I keep taped behind a cabinet door. I haven't been on 160 in so many years that I had to check the window freqs when I
Funny, I had the same experience on 1823, probably with the same top-scoring IL station. Since I wasn't putting in a serious effort, and he was, I took the attitude "this will hurt you more than it w
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 08:38:58 -0800
You mean aside from working to abolish these sacred windows, net frequencies, and other silliness? -- Kenneth E. Harker WM5R kenharker@kenharker.com http://www.kenharker.com/ ________________________
This raises an interesting question. How do you decide when it's worth it or not to fight over a frequency? Last weekend I felt it was counter productive and it made more sense to find a better spot.
I had a similar experience in SS where a well known Zero Land Multiop had left a frequency I believe on 40m for quite a while. We were working on another band at the time then decided to switch. This
What a lid! (I mean the unnamed IL station, not the two Steves.) 73, kelly ve4xt me. Then he came to say _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.
It depends on if you are making contacts or the other station is. If they are and you are not, time to move. If you are managing to make Q's and they are not then chances are they will probably get p
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ When they "pretend not to hear us" and at the same time, you work folks on that frequency that they don't, I suspect they have a VFO problem, either
Good point, especially on CW weekends. Hate to count the number of times that a run QRG went spongy on me, only to notice some minutes later that I'd neglected to clear my RIT after I tweaked it for
On 160 meters, when a station has many directional receive antennas, it might be that they actually did not hear you. At K1LT last weekend, Victor had 13 Beverages selectable, and often any given st
I think that it is incumbent upon those stations to cycle through their beverages or listen on the TX antenna often. Nothing is more annoying than hearing a loud station transmitting with apparently