Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: CQ WW 160 meter CW this weekend  (Read 2473 times)
WX7G
Member

Posts: 5908




Ignore
« on: January 24, 2011, 02:19:33 PM »

The CQ WW 160 meter CW contest is this weekend Jan. 28, 2200 Z to Jan. 30, 2200 Z. Load up any piece of wire you can and join the fun!
Logged
KM5PS
Member

Posts: 81


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2011, 05:54:53 PM »

Looking forward to the contest this weekend. Operating from NW AR.  73's
Logged
DJ1YFK
Member

Posts: 182


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2011, 12:28:40 PM »

See you on 160m from OE9R (M/S)!

73
Logged

NI0C
Member

Posts: 2380




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2011, 10:02:34 AM »

I thought conditions were pretty good this weekend, with many strong EU stations workable among all the domestic QSO's.  RA0FF peaked just after sunrise here, as did JA3YBK.  RA0FF was a new zone for me on 160m. 

My biggest problem was the narrow bandwidth of my TX antenna.  Normally that's not a problem; however during this CW only contest, stations operate on frequencies normally used for local SSB chat.   

73,
Chuck  NI0C
 
Logged
DJ1YFK
Member

Posts: 182


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2011, 04:24:48 AM »

Condx were quite OK but not as good as last year.

About 1765 QSOs, 83 DXCCs and 40 States in our log at OE9R (ant: INV-L 25m vertical, US bev 170m, JA bev 90m only). Good opening to JA both evenings but the US openings were way down from last year, with very few W6/7 stations in the log.

Details will be posted on 3830 soon.

73
Logged

WA7KGX
Member

Posts: 104




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2011, 11:26:08 PM »

Why do we bother entering signal reports in log entries?
A number of times it took a minute or more to get my
call correct, but I almost always got a "59" report. 

I think it's because logging software defaults to a 59
report and changing it is time consuming and inconvenient.

May I suggest not entering signal reports in the logs.
That way it would be no more difficult to give a realistic,
useful signal report than the default 59.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!