Derick;
I am laughing so hard I can hardly type. Very witty!
>23. If your partner asks you to check out 15 meters, just listen in the
> novice band.
Thios one, despite being true, kind of bugs me. How do we entice novices and
tech pluses into contesting? And after all isn't that where we should be
starting the "recruiting" drive? One thing I've thought about is a special
category for novice/tech plus. Would that entice any into the sport? I was
first bitten by the contest bug in 1978 when I was a novice, and the band
(including the novice portion) was packed. (old call was KA8HFS, now if that
didn't stink during a contest you tell me what did :) ) Perhaps with a
special category for those who cannot enter the other parts of the band we
can get some action there too?
73,
Al - kk5zx
____________________________________________________________________________
E-Mail: foggie@dtx.net | Snail-Mail: Allen Fogleson
| Fort Polk, La 71459
____________________________________________________________________________
This message was sent by XF-Mail free of charge, and is 100% microsoft free!
For more information on remaining microsoft free try http://www.redhat.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From aa7bg@initco.net (AA7BG Matt Trott) Thu Jul 4 01:19:33 1996
From: aa7bg@initco.net (AA7BG Matt Trott) (AA7BG Matt Trott)
Subject: trap losses
Message-ID: <199607040019.SAA08080@zeus.initco.net>
>that while the trap losses with this design are modeled to be under .04 db
>on 10, 17 and 40 meters, they hit 1.66 db on 80, with a trap Q of 171. The
>author attributes this to the antenna's input resistance being "reduced" to
>51.8 ohms, and then calls the 1.66 db (for 2 traps) "insignificant." Huh?
Maybe this is why some feel that a "few db" loss is insignificant:
Let's say we're running 1500 watts and we are S9. We're (hypothetically)
using RG174 and 36 barrel connectors in our feedline. Let's say our total
loss is 18 db!! Well if an "S" unit is 6db, then we're still being received
S6!! Sure, we're only putting 23.4 watts into the antenna, but we're workin'
guys!
Hey, just thought I'd play devil's advocate.
BTW, was this a question on the no-code extra test?? There's plenty of them
around too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AA7BG -Finally made the TOP 11 ('95 10m test hp CW)- Matt Trott
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>From barry@w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) Thu Jul 4 00:55:34 1996
From: barry@w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Subject: Radio Shack rotor help
Message-ID: <BViiqD1w165w@w2up.wells.com>
I have a Radio Shack rotor which stopped turning today. Does anyone have
a manual with pinout info? Tnx/Barry
--
Barry N. Kutner, W2UP Internet: barry@w2up.wells.com
Newtown, PA Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
Packet Cluster: W2UP >WB2R (FRC)
.......................................................................
>From wrt@eskimo.com (Bill Turner) Thu Jul 4 02:08:30 1996
From: wrt@eskimo.com (Bill Turner) (Bill Turner)
Subject: cw forever?
References: <1.5.4.32.19960703200039.0067ebc0@aloha.net>
Message-ID: <31db09b4.1569554@mail.eskimo.com>
On Wed, 03 Jul 1996 10:00:39 -1000, you wrote:
>At 12:38 PM 7/3/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>>I would like to hear from contesters with digital mode and cw experience
>>>regarding their thoughts on how cw, rtty, and state of the art digital
>>>modes compare for contest-style weak signal work.
>>
>>Theoretically, CW doesn't stand a chance.
>
>Yes, but try hearing (seeing) those weak digital signals
>on a busy band during a digital contest! Or, actually,
>try to find them just calling a random CQ; just about
>not possible. PACTOR, etc all work to skeds, as far
>as I know (which really isn't much!).
>
>73, Jim, AH6NB
>
>
---------------------------------------------
My experience has been that RTTY is readily copyable at extremely weak
signal levels, provided one has the narrow bandwidth needed. I use a
250 Hz filter in my TS-850S, and I'm often amazed at how well the TNC
can pick signals out of the noise. I'd say RTTY compares very
favorably with CW in that department.
73, Bill W7LZP
wrt@eskimo.com
>From jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid) Thu Jul 4 03:01:51 1996
From: jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid) (Jim Reid)
Subject: cw forever?
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19960704020151.0067af98@aloha.net>
At 01:08 AM 7/4/96 GMT, you wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Jul 1996 10:00:39 -1000, you wrote:
>
>>At 12:38 PM 7/3/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>>>I would like to hear from contesters with digital mode and cw experience
>>>>regarding their thoughts on how cw, rtty, and state of the art digital
>>>>modes compare for contest-style weak signal work.
>>>
>>>Theoretically, CW doesn't stand a chance.
>>
>>Yes, but try hearing (seeing) those weak digital signals
>>on a busy band during a digital contest! Or, actually,
>>try to find them just calling a random CQ; just about
>>not possible. PACTOR, etc all work to skeds, as far
>>as I know (which really isn't much!).
>>
>>73, Jim, AH6NB
>>
>>
>---------------------------------------------
>My experience has been that RTTY is readily copyable at extremely weak
>signal levels, provided one has the narrow bandwidth needed. I use a
>250 Hz filter in my TS-850S, and I'm often amazed at how well the TNC
>can pick signals out of the noise. I'd say RTTY compares very
>favorably with CW in that department.
>
>73, Bill W7LZP
>wrt@eskimo.com
I absolutely agree; it was the -TOR modes I had in mind with
my comment. Obviously RTTY is a good, useful HF "hamming"
QSO'n and contesting mode.
73, Jim,AH6NB
|