Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Fwd\:\s+Why\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Fwd\:\s+Why\?\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Fwd: Why? (score: 1): Author: Hank Greeb <n8xx@arrl.org>; Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 18:57:42 -0500; Andy: My only comment: Excellent analysis and hypotheses. How can we entice a sufficient number of contest ops "pack the bands" in a contest using BPSK (31 or 63) to determine if the bandwidth advant; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-01/msg00057.html (15,073 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] Fwd: Why? (score: 1): Author: Ward Silver <hwardsil@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 11:15:10 -0600; I don't the issue is as much about spectrum efficiency or channel characteristics as it is of the session-level protocol for RTTY and PSK31, for which there really isn't one. Both are "connection-les; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-01/msg00059.html (7,418 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Fwd: Why? (score: 1): Author: Charles Harpole <hs0zcw@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 05:06:27 +0700; There are parts of the world where ham spectrum space is NOT a problem. Without a major contest I can tune ALL bands under 2m and hear ONE ham contacting activity per band ... all over 9 bands, avera; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-01/msg00060.html (8,516 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]