CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [CQ-Contest] Field Day and CW

To: "'CQ-CONTEST'" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Field Day and CW
From: "Robert Brandon" <rbrandon@austin.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:13:15 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I had the same experience.  CW was steady.  It was hard to get phone runs
going.

Robert K5PI 

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Chris Hurlbut
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 12:51 PM
To: KE3F@prodigy.net
Cc: CQ-CONTEST
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Field Day and CW


Actually at the W7UQ Field Day, our CW rate was much much higher than our
fone rate.  We could just never really get anything going on phone, but CW
was always there when we wanted.

-Chris KL9A


On Mon, 2004-06-28 at 10:52, KE3F@prodigy.net wrote:
> Well, FD was quite a hoot with PVRC- my first major
> effort in many years.  Served as primary relief CW op 
> and got a chance to do code on 5 of 6 HF bands.  
> Anyhow, was chatting with a couple of the other CW 
> types during the dinner period and we agreed that the 
> CW activity seemed down a bit this year - especially 
> on 10 meters where we were begging for QSOs.
> 
> One of the guys attributed the fact (sunspot cycle
> notwithstanding) to the notion that people just aren't 
> doing CW and CW contesting anymore.  The other 
> countered that by arguing that since many of the baby 
> boomer amateur operators are into their 50s and 60s, 
> that CW activity in contests should actually increase 
> as these contesters have more time to devote things 
> like amateur radio now that they've moved past 
> the "crunch" points in their careers and many have 
> families that are progessing through and beyond the 
> college period.
> 
> So, has anybody else noticed a trend pattern in fewer
> and fewer QSO counts in the CW tests?  Has someone 
> compare QSO counts in 2003 or 2004 to say the same 
> period in 1992 or 1993?  Many variables at work, but 
> it'd be interesting to see the discussion.
> 
> 73 Rich KE3F
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com 
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>