Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions

[k6xt]

Same boat here. Many callers up to a half kc off freq. Whether I worked 
them or my compatriot CQer nearby is sometimes a guess.

The directional rx antennas were sometimes a pain, sometimes the 
solution. I often found myself listening on the tx vertical just to 
eliminate the directivity issue into USA...but then the issue is missing 
a weak one as others noted.

No perfect solution.

BTW listening in the 30-35 segment was frustrating. What DX was there 
had competition from US CQrs who didn't read the contest rules page, and 
from a host of packet spot aficionados who couldn't hear their neighbors 
much less the DX.

-- 
73 Art K6XT~~
Success is going from failure to failure without a loss of enthusiasm.

   From: Wayne Mills
   To: 'Brian_ve7jkz' ;topband@contesting.com
   Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 1:24 PM
   Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions


   "Bang on zero beat" IS a problem. I am noticing more and more of that as
(I
   guess) more and more guys rely on SPOTTING SOFTWARE! Agh! It doesn't
   make any sense to call exactly zero beat.

   As I mentioned in an earlier post, using directional receive only antennas
   seems to be a problem. Maybe I can't hear a station at all without my rx
   antenna, but maybe I can't hear others in the wrong direction. I haven't
   figured out the best way to use directional rx antennas. Maybe the someone
   needs to develop antenna scanning software

   Wayne, N7NG
   Jackson Hole


___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: Zero Beat

[VE6WZ_Steve]

I think this zero beat issue is being a bit "over-done" in my opinion.It 
is not a requirement to be zero beat is it?
Reasons for non-zero beat:

1.) some (as others have mentioned) will purposely call off beat to avoid 
the crowd..I do this very often on DX using my XIT, even in a contest I 
will call off frequency if I notice the DX is working slightly off. If you 
have ever worked a pile with everyone zero beat you will know it can be 
almost impossible.

2.) SKIMMERS/Packet (big cause of off-beat)..many callers during a 
contest are using "point and shoot".  Click the spot on the band map and 
call..they are using the packet/skimmer RBN spot QRG and call without 
fine tuning the QRG. I have done this myself and I get the QSO and move on. 
No problem.

3.) maybe some don't know how to zero beat exactly even if they wanted to.

de steve ve6wz. 

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: Zero Beat

[Steven Raas]

Charlie & Mark,

Im glad This is brought up.. One thing I use when chasing weak sig dx is a
audio pan adapter so to speak ( DM780 ) I see the tone QRG of the RX sig
and my Side tone .. which is adjustable and is my TX tone adjust. I will be
the 1st to admit I dident even think of using it durring the 160 Test.. I
will now employ that for Stew. As my ears are not what they used to be.. I
can surely be off an EASY 20-100 hz depending on how my noise level/qrm
is.. This is one way I can surely improve. I will also check to be 100%
sure that the tone adjustment on the front of my rig is infact working
properly, and that My side tone is my actual TX tone on dial QRG.

In addition.. Im now looking for CW filters for my rig.. Ive gone far FAR
too long w/o em and have used the CW VBT on my TS-940S with all be it great
results...just not quite good enough for crowded band condx.

-Steve Raas
N2JDQ


On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Missouri Guy  wrote:

> >
> > The worst case is where you have a guy sending at 10 WPM with a
> > straight key who is way off frequency.  Obviously, not an
> > experienced
> > contest operator, he is quite capable of being way off frequency.
> > Or maybe he's not off frequency, just isn't good at CW.
>
> Heh..heh...at least he got on and made some people happy to
> the QSO in their log.  :D)
>
> 73,
> Charlie, N0TT
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: Zero Beat

[Missouri Guy]

> 
> The worst case is where you have a guy sending at 10 WPM with a
> straight key who is way off frequency.  Obviously, not an 
> experienced
> contest operator, he is quite capable of being way off frequency.
> Or maybe he's not off frequency, just isn't good at CW.

Heh..heh...at least he got on and made some people happy to
the QSO in their log.  :D)

73,
Charlie, N0TT
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: An observation about Topband contesting technique

[Steven Raas]

Could be Sam,

I do know that here with my set up ( pretty sad to be honest hihi ) That
most of the weak ones I work on QSB peaks .. which only last for 15 or so
seconds.. It really depends on the condx tho. More so.. and I've had it
happen say 10x this weekend, I cq @ 25-28.. some one comes back @ near
speed ( a few hi or low is FB ).. I send a partial call and ? and they go
right to 10 WPM..or they send their call again @ original speed and send
their call again right after the 1st @ a HIGHLY reduced speed. I dnt mind
QRS'ing I get it.. but from 25 or so to 10? Its like saying 'I think ur
sending faster than u can copy so im going to really drag this out to teach
you somthing'

It is entirely possible im over sensitive to this.. and I am also willing
to admit that as a possibility, honestly.

Regardless .. Im thankfull for every single QSO I made this week end on TB.

Im trying to think how I can do better for Stew, as I am more serious abt
that one.. I was in bed by 130 AM I think both nights as I did not want to
mess up my sleep pattern for this test..that WILL NOT be the case for Stew.
I just hope I find more stations spread out a bit.. I will also be S&P WAY
WAY WAY more.. running is NOT productive for me..as after i logged the 1st
150 q's I could easily go 30 minutes inbetween a new one vs. just SnP .
When I do run.. I run High.. 1850-1870 Too many big people down low in my
little people world hihi.

-Steve Raas
N2JDQ

On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Sam Morgan  wrote:

> since I have a very weak signal (24w ERP from a 7' tall vertical)
> when I get ask for a repeat of my call
> I send it again at the original speed
>
> but 90% of the time I end up having to repeat more than once
> and them may even have to reduce my speed to ~13wpm
> then I finally have my call copied
>
> perhaps what you are running into is
> someone who is tired of the 3-4 intermediate attempts at normal speeds
> and just cuts to the chase and reduces speed to get it done more quickly?
>
>
> --
> GB & 73
> K5OAI
> Sam Morgan
>
> On 12/4/2011 7:41 PM, Steven Raas wrote:
> > Here is one thing
> > that REALLY irks me ( any contest definitely not TB specific ) I cq.. I
> > get a weak reply.. I send ? or __? or w/e i need to.. and they CHANGE
> THEIR
> > SPEED..or they slow down from 25 WPM to 10 wpm..REALLY? I wouldn't CQ @ a
> > WPM that I couldn't  copy a call @ 99,1 % of the time @ the same speed
> with
> > a marginal to light signal
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: Zero Beat

[Mark Lunday]

Bill

The root cause (which you are addressing in this instance) is a lack of
elmer-ing/mentor-ing.

Our hobby is blessed with many who know a lot, and are willing to share
without making the less-knowledgeable feel inferior.  

I've been a ham for 34 years, and I am learning lots of new stuff every
week.  I promised my Elmer (W4ZM, SK) that I would always help those who
asked for it, and never denigrate or ridicule any question. I also promised
my Elmer that I would never be afraid to ask questions and look for ways to
learn more. 

The topic of zero-beat is just one of the important aspects of CW that can
be shared for better operating habits on 160.  Thanks for making the effort,
sign me up as a willing assistant.

Mark Lunday, WD4ELG



___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: ARRL 160

[Missouri Guy]

> The (ARRL 160) contest does not attract DX and 
> is a 
> waste of time compared to SP and CQ events where the DX stations on 
> TB 
> are in the thousands.

Just my 2-cents worthI sure did appreciate
the DX stations who DID get on and struggle to get their
signal through all the storm static here in Missouri!!

73,
Charlie, N0TT



> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
> 
> 
 
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: ARRL 160

[Missouri Guy]

Gary,
 
Heh...heh...'Must have been the "night of dying computers"My 
trusty old Gateway Colorbook died during the heat of battle
Friday nightwas able to rescue the log and continue on
with another computer ~two hours later!!  You're in my log,
which I'll be uploading to LBoTW in a couple of days.
 
73,
Charlie, N0TT
Missouri Section
 
On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:03:08 -0500 "Gary Smith"  writes:
> It was at QSO #8 I think it was when I moved the monitor to be more 
> ergonomic with the radio, HI-Z triangular controller & key when I 
> looked and the computer was dead. Power to the cord so it's either a 
> 
> dead PS or motherboard. Unsure but will figure it out later. Started 
> 
> up computer #2 & after getting data from the dead computer 
> transferred to it 2 hours later, kept going.
> 
> Sure was little DX on this end in CT, only 8 mults & 3,118 points. 
> Much less than last year. Interesting that overall the bands have 
> been doing nicely for DX, I'm looking forward to CQWW160 for DX. Do 
> 
> love the 160 contests.
> 
> Gary
> KA1J 
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
> 
> 
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: An observation about Topband contesting technique

[Sam Morgan]

since I have a very weak signal (24w ERP from a 7' tall vertical)
when I get ask for a repeat of my call
I send it again at the original speed

but 90% of the time I end up having to repeat more than once
and them may even have to reduce my speed to ~13wpm
then I finally have my call copied

perhaps what you are running into is
someone who is tired of the 3-4 intermediate attempts at normal speeds
and just cuts to the chase and reduces speed to get it done more quickly?


--
GB & 73
K5OAI
Sam Morgan

On 12/4/2011 7:41 PM, Steven Raas wrote:
> Here is one thing
> that REALLY irks me ( any contest definitely not TB specific ) I cq.. I
> get a weak reply.. I send ? or __? or w/e i need to.. and they CHANGE THEIR
> SPEED..or they slow down from 25 WPM to 10 wpm..REALLY? I wouldn't CQ @ a
> WPM that I couldn't  copy a call @ 99,1 % of the time @ the same speed with
> a marginal to light signal
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: An observation about Topband contesting technique

[Steven Raas]

I agree 100%,

I run alot.. but im FAR FAR from big.. my rule of thumbs is... Calling CQ
TEST.. leave enough room between CQ's to hear your own call  2x in a row
10wpm LESS that your CQ'ing at.. I generally cq @ 28 WPM as it says on the
N1MM program.. and I had the delay @ about 8 Seconds. Here is one thing
that REALLY irks me ( any contest definatally not TB specific ) I cq.. I
get a weak reply.. I send ? or __? or w/e i need to.. and they CHANGE THEIR
SPEED..or they slow down from 25 WPM to 10 wpm..REALLY? I wouldent CQ @ a
WPM that I couldent  copy a call @ 99,1 % of the time @ the same speed with
a marginal to light signal. ( the other .9% im drinkin coffee n I slurp
loud hihi) Also hear a few ..very few thank goodness, horrible dot dash
ratios out there.. like the dashes were @ 25 wpm but the dots @ 40..tht is
SO HARD to copy.. STOP doing that!  On the flip side.. I think the speed
gurus are hoping for that 45 second opening to super-caledonia and the only
way they will make the q is 100% copy & one exchange @ 38 WPM.

-Steve Raas
N2JDQ

On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Cormac Gebruers wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> This weekend I spent a bit of time dipping in to the ARRL 160m contest.
> Something that has struck me a lot over the past few contests on topband
> struck me yet again last night and I figured it was time I put pen to
> paper. I think (hope) it is something fellow contesters might appreciate
> being reminded about as it will help increase their topband score:
>
> I'm a pretty typical little pistol station; on topband I run 100w into a
> base loaded vertical that is just shy of 18m high. It has a reasonable
> ground system under it - 44 radials that are a quarter wave on 80m and that
> radial system is also connected to my 64 quarter wave radial system for my
> 40m vertical (that is in the direction of USA/Canada as it happens). I live
> on the shores of the Atlantic ocean so I'm luckier than most in terms of
> far field. I use a K9AY for listening that is over one wavelength from my
> transmit antenna and has a buried coax feed. These two antennas, 100w and a
> good radio (Yaesu FT-2000 with AC0C roofing filter mod) are a balanced
> combination in practice - lots of time on the air suggests my ears and
> mouth are pretty well matched.
>
> One pattern that lots of operating on topband has thrown up is this; if the
> band is open during the night (not special conditions around
> sunset/sunrise), I'm usually quite audible (but far from rock crushing)
> into the areas about 4000-6000km E/W from my QTH e.g. to the east coast of
> the USA. In a normal DX situation I'll call at a relatively low speed
> (16WPM) until I get one through i.e. when the frequency is sufficiently QRM
> & QRN free. My callsign will generally be copied by the DX station after
> two (perhaps three) repeats. After that we'll have a pretty solid QSO
> (provided band conditions aren't fluctuating rapidly).
>
> In a contest situation however things too often go differently; too many
> run stations treat topband just like the higher bands and call CQ *but only
> listen for a very brief period* before calling again. Unfortunately for me
> (and for them) that results in them failing to hear my call. I'm quite
> confident I'm there alright but the run stations are not leaving long
> enough between calls for there to be much chance of my 16WPM relatively
> weak call being heard. These stations aren't crocodiles - many are in the
> super station category and definitely have the "ears" to hear me. This
> seems to be a matter of operating technique, not technology.
>
> Last night I worked 19 of the 26 stations I called on the east coast. The
> others should have been hearing me just as well. I seriously doubt it was
> their ears were the problem as they were all big stations. It wasn't QRM
> either as they weren't working anyone else. QRN wasn't an issue as far as I
> could tell last night... All the stations I failed to work exhibited a
> common behaviour of leaving only a matter of seconds between CQ calls. I
> did struggle to work stations further west in e.g. LA and TX - even those
> that were listening with great care, but that was down to propagation I
> expect (the K was 2 at the time - see ON4UN for some interesting stats
> about the probability of working the west coast of the USA from Europe when
> the K index is > 1). The 7 guys I didn't work were in "easy" states like
> NH, NY, PA, ME etc. where I did work at least two other stations of similar
> capability.
>
> On topband, run stations need to leave longer between CQs than they do on
> the higher bands to give themselves  a chance to hear the weaker ones. Why
> bother? On topband there is a higher proportion of stations that fall into
> the "weaker" category than on the higher bands due to the necessity for
> many to use compromised transmit antennas on 160. A run station's QSO total
> depends on listening a bit harder and a bit longer on topband but this is
> something that certa

Topband: Rain gutter redeux

[jon jones]

I got on early Sunday morning around 1000 utc after getting home from work. 
Added
another 28 QSOs using the gutter antenna. Conditions better to the east coast 
with K8PO ME
and VE2OJ PQ worked. Numerous W2s and 3s loud around 1100 utc. Noise level high 
on it
and probably more potential contacts possbile had I used a seperate receive 
antenna. 
 
Ended up around 130 contacts using a simple "stealth" antenna.
 
 - N0JK   
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: Zero Beat

[Bill Cromwell]

Hi,

I just got home from my first Santa gig of the season. After I sent my
last post I got to wondering how many hams have their main focus in
areas other than the technical aspects of amateur radio and might not be
familiar with all of the concepts involved. Some other comments in the
threads point in that same direction. I know that when I studied for my
licenses (a commercial license, too) I had to learn about things I had
and still have no intention ever using. For instance...I am NOT going to
build a two meter FM repeater - ever. Once in a while I use one and I
have some vague notion about how it might have been built. It's only
fair that other hams have their "weaker" areas, too. Some hams seem to
really not know what zero beat is at all.

There seems to be a renewed interest in CW operating so a new "primer"
regarding "zero beat" might be appropriate. I have started gathering
information and verifying some pieces with the aim of making that
document. I would like to call on some of the ham community who seem
pretty easily familiar to help by reviewing and suggesting changes or
contributing additional material. If you're willing to help, please
contact me off list. 

73,

Bill  KU8H

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: Zero Beat

[Rick Karlquist]

Jim Bennett wrote:
> Just my two cents worth on the zero beat issue. My station is one of the
> little guns / squirt guns. I operated in the weekend's contest with a

I'm not a little gun, but you are absolutely correct.  The thing to
do is answer about 50 Hz above or below zero beat.  I have been
doing this for years.  Just enough to allow the running station to
distinguish the callers, but within a 200 Hz filter bandwidth (remember
that means +/- 100 Hz.  "Just off zero beat".

It isn't easy to get this right.  You have to accurately zero beat
your receiver, but select XIT = +/- 50.  My FT1000 have a "CW tune"
light for zero beating.  I don't know what people with other rigs
do.

The worst case is where you have a guy sending at 10 WPM with a
straight key who is way off frequency.  Obviously, not an experienced
contest operator, he is quite capable of being way off frequency.
Or maybe he's not off frequency, just isn't good at CW.

Rick N6RK

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: ARRL 160 Conditions, Key Clicks

[Ken]

On Dec 4, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Preston Smith wrote:
> 
> Solution is simple, one yellow carding or delisting to check log and
> these guys would have a clean signal in the next contest guaranteed.
> But that is up to the sponsors. I'm not holding my breath.
> 
> Pres, N6ss
> 


Sounds like an easy way to eliminate the competition:  just report them for 
having a bad signal.   :-(

This isn't back in the crystal controlled days when you were fixed in your 
frequency, your can change frequency easily.


___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions

[Mike & Coreen Smith]

I had this problem with CN2R a couple yrs ago in some contest or 
pileup..we were on 160m and he was S9 or better
We finally worked and so, what the heck, I emailed the op later to ask 
(nicely) if he was deaf or what?

I got a nice reply that at that time they had a multitude  of beverages (I 
forget how many 8, 9?) and that he was mostly working EU's at the time.

I was embarrassed for complaining, but that would sure explain it ! (HI)

Mike VE9AA
Mike, Coreen & Corey Smith
699 Rte 616 Keswick Ridge
NB
Canada
E6L 1T1
  - Original Message - 
  From: Wayne Mills
  To: 'Brian_ve7jkz' ; topband@contesting.com
  Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 1:24 PM
  Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions


  "Bang on zero beat" IS a problem. I am noticing more and more of that as 
(I
  guess) more and more guys rely on SPOTTING SOFTWARE! Agh! It doesn't
  make any sense to call exactly zero beat.

  As I mentioned in an earlier post, using directional receive only antennas
  seems to be a problem. Maybe I can't hear a station at all without my rx
  antenna, but maybe I can't hear others in the wrong direction. I haven't
  figured out the best way to use directional rx antennas. Maybe the someone
  needs to develop antenna scanning software ;-)

  Wayne, N7NG
  Jackson Hole

  -Original Message-
  From: topband-boun...@contesting.com 
[mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com]
  On Behalf Of Brian_ve7jkz
  Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 10:02 AM
  To: topband@contesting.com
  Subject: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions

  Very disappointing indeed, although always nice to work the east coast,
  ME, WNY, VA, MAR (PEI) etc from the wet coast. And CE3 was a nice one.
  For the propagation experts out there did the poor conditions reflect
  the increasing solar flux as the new cycle gets going? Or is it just one
  of those things?

  I was also surprised at some strong signals I called several times and
  they never came back. I put out about 400W or so to a shunt fed tower
  (56 feet with 8 element beam on top), with lots of radials, and like to
  think I get out reasonably well for what I have. So if some of these
  very strong signal stations don't hear me and continue CQ'ing what does
  it mean? Maybe they have very high noise levels in which case putting
  out a mega signal doesn't buy much if they can't hear those
  calling..? I would add that my home brew radio has a very neat way
  of ensuring I'm bang on zero beat so that's not the problem.

  Tnx to all 205 who worked me.

  Brian VE7JKZ
  ___
  UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK


  ___
  UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK


--



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 8.5.454 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4053 - Release Date: 12/02/11 
19:41:00
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Topband: Zero Beat

[Jim Bennett]

Just my two cents worth on the zero beat issue. My station is one of the little 
guns / squirt guns. I operated in the weekend's contest with a K3/100 into an 
Inverted L with only 25 feet in the vertical plane. When I hear big-signal 
stations calling QRZ or CQ and subsequently get answered by a bazillion 
callers, all zero-beat on the caller's frequency, my tiny signal has very 
little chance of being heard. I can imaging what it must sound like to the 
person running the frequency, to have a bunch of folks call, all on exactly the 
same frequency. So, I, like quite a few others, move off frequency a few Hz, in 
an attempt to differentiate our CW tones from that of the thundering heard. It 
works. I know that If I were running 1,500 watts into a huge antenna array and 
had 15-20 people answer my CQ, all on exactly the same frequency, I'd scream. 
And, look at how DX stations pull out a single signal from a pile-up. When they 
say "Up 5", you'll hear them answer callers anywhere from 4 - 6 KHz up.

Zero beat is great if there aren't a bunch of stations all calling. I can zero 
beat EXACTLY with the push of one button on the K3. I do that when I'm having 
non-contest QSO's, or if I'm in a contest and calling a station who doesn't 
have half of California calling him/her. So, there may very well be a good 
reason why there are those of us out there who do NOT do a zero beat 100% of 
the time…

Just my thoughts

(And, thanks to the folks who were able to copy me this weekend and gave me 
some valuable info on where my signal was or wasn't being heard!)

73, Jim / W6JHB - Folsom, CA


___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Topband: email change

[Jim and Ella]

Please change my email address from wb5oxq@ to wb5ox...@grandecom.net
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Topband: An observation about Topband contesting technique

[Cormac Gebruers]

Hi All,

This weekend I spent a bit of time dipping in to the ARRL 160m contest.
Something that has struck me a lot over the past few contests on topband
struck me yet again last night and I figured it was time I put pen to
paper. I think (hope) it is something fellow contesters might appreciate
being reminded about as it will help increase their topband score:

I'm a pretty typical little pistol station; on topband I run 100w into a
base loaded vertical that is just shy of 18m high. It has a reasonable
ground system under it - 44 radials that are a quarter wave on 80m and that
radial system is also connected to my 64 quarter wave radial system for my
40m vertical (that is in the direction of USA/Canada as it happens). I live
on the shores of the Atlantic ocean so I'm luckier than most in terms of
far field. I use a K9AY for listening that is over one wavelength from my
transmit antenna and has a buried coax feed. These two antennas, 100w and a
good radio (Yaesu FT-2000 with AC0C roofing filter mod) are a balanced
combination in practice - lots of time on the air suggests my ears and
mouth are pretty well matched.

One pattern that lots of operating on topband has thrown up is this; if the
band is open during the night (not special conditions around
sunset/sunrise), I'm usually quite audible (but far from rock crushing)
into the areas about 4000-6000km E/W from my QTH e.g. to the east coast of
the USA. In a normal DX situation I'll call at a relatively low speed
(16WPM) until I get one through i.e. when the frequency is sufficiently QRM
& QRN free. My callsign will generally be copied by the DX station after
two (perhaps three) repeats. After that we'll have a pretty solid QSO
(provided band conditions aren't fluctuating rapidly).

In a contest situation however things too often go differently; too many
run stations treat topband just like the higher bands and call CQ *but only
listen for a very brief period* before calling again. Unfortunately for me
(and for them) that results in them failing to hear my call. I'm quite
confident I'm there alright but the run stations are not leaving long
enough between calls for there to be much chance of my 16WPM relatively
weak call being heard. These stations aren't crocodiles - many are in the
super station category and definitely have the "ears" to hear me. This
seems to be a matter of operating technique, not technology.

Last night I worked 19 of the 26 stations I called on the east coast. The
others should have been hearing me just as well. I seriously doubt it was
their ears were the problem as they were all big stations. It wasn't QRM
either as they weren't working anyone else. QRN wasn't an issue as far as I
could tell last night... All the stations I failed to work exhibited a
common behaviour of leaving only a matter of seconds between CQ calls. I
did struggle to work stations further west in e.g. LA and TX - even those
that were listening with great care, but that was down to propagation I
expect (the K was 2 at the time - see ON4UN for some interesting stats
about the probability of working the west coast of the USA from Europe when
the K index is > 1). The 7 guys I didn't work were in "easy" states like
NH, NY, PA, ME etc. where I did work at least two other stations of similar
capability.

On topband, run stations need to leave longer between CQs than they do on
the higher bands to give themselves  a chance to hear the weaker ones. Why
bother? On topband there is a higher proportion of stations that fall into
the "weaker" category than on the higher bands due to the necessity for
many to use compromised transmit antennas on 160. A run station's QSO total
depends on listening a bit harder and a bit longer on topband but this is
something that certain stations seem to have overlooked. It is interesting
that those run stations in the 4000 to 6000km zone that do leave a decent
gap (enough time for me to transmit my call twice at 16WPM) almost
invariably do hear me and consequently do get the QSO and the points as a
result :-)

It's been my overwhelming experience on topband that it is beneficial to
slow things down a bit. I always use a lower WPM speed as experience has
shown it clearly makes me stand out more than if I send faster. For run
stations leaving bigger gaps between CQs on the higher bands will impact
rate but let's face it you aren't going to work a rate of 160 an hour on
topband very often, so generally there is time to listen for a bit longer.
Many little pistols wind back the CW WPM on topband as it increases the
likelihood of a successful QSO. It only works however if the other guy/gal
leave long enough between CQs to hear us in the first place!
Thanks for the contacts in the ARRL 160, it was fun - see you in the Stew
Perry in a few weeks.

-- 
Regards
Cormac, EI4HQ
[Cork/UTC] 
http://ei4hq.cloudaccess.net
http://www.corkharbourweather.ie
https://sites.google.com/site/cormacgebruers/

Re: Topband: ARRL 160 and zero beat

[Mike Fatchett W0MU]

Many people do not understand how to zero beat.  I found someone up 
nearly 1/2 kc calling me in the WW contest.  Many are high or low and by 
more than a little.

W0MU

On 12/4/11 1:21 PM, VE2TZT wrote:
> I must admit that I have given up understanding how and why so many are
> calling so far from the zero beat.
>
> During this 160 ARRL and more generally all CW contests, at several
> instances I answered to the guy two times without knowing exactly which one
> was for me and which one for my running neighbour...
>
> I guess that except for those forgetting to switch off the RIT, some
> operators never had other filters than SSB filters in their radio and do not
> realize what we can hear at the other side through a 400 Hz or 250 Hz
> filter.
>
> Gilles VA2EW
>
>
>
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Topband: ARRL 160 and zero beat

[VE2TZT]

I must admit that I have given up understanding how and why so many are 
calling so far from the zero beat.

During this 160 ARRL and more generally all CW contests, at several 
instances I answered to the guy two times without knowing exactly which one 
was for me and which one for my running neighbour...

I guess that except for those forgetting to switch off the RIT, some 
operators never had other filters than SSB filters in their radio and do not 
realize what we can hear at the other side through a 400 Hz or 250 Hz 
filter.

Gilles VA2EW



___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions

[N1BUG]

> I was going to ask Wayne off-list about that statement. The more I have
> learned the more I realize I don't know. My guess was that he might know
> or observe something that others of us have missed somehow. Now that the
> question is on the list...I would like to know, too. Why would we want
> to transmit anywhere at all other than where the calling station is
> listening? I think split operation is for DX pileups...not contests.
> Maybe that's my error.

Hi Bill,

I stand corrected. Evidently they were talking about 50-75 Hz to 
avoid being EXACTLY zero beat with other callers. That much can be 
useful. 100+ gets into a gray area, over 200 is usually going to be 
trouble in ARRL 160, IMO. At 100 Hz up or down I will have to tune 
to hear a caller, but at least I have some chance of pulling him out 
from under my adjacent running station.

I've just received a private email from a west coast contester who 
says it is a different world out there, wide open spaces on the 
band. That is enlightening. I wish it were that way here.

I got an email from a perturbed contester one year asking why I did 
not answer him. He needed Maine for WAS. I said I never heard him 
but I would be happy to sked him. On the sked I found him 400 Hz 
above my frequency. I have no idea if he had been that far off 
during the contest, but if he was I can tell you why I didn't hear 
him. There was another contester running 250 Hz up and he was well 
over S9. Why would I look for people calling me above the adjacent 
guy's pile?

By the way I don't run a skimmer but I believe I am able to get 
within 10 to 20 Hz of the stations I call. If anyone has evidence to 
the contrary, PLEASE let me know as it means something is wrong here 
and needs to be corrected.

OK, more than enough out of me on this subject.

73,
Paul N1BUG
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: ARRL 160 Conditions, Key Clicks

[Preston Smith]

Concur with Roger, N1RJ. Saturday morning a zero a few hundred miles
away in Colorado started CQing less than 250 Hz above my run QRG.
I use a K3 and this is normally no problem but his sig had severe
clicks. I told him he had bad clicks and asked him to go from full
to semi-breakin. I've found this move to be a 99% cure. He refused.
Shortly I had to give up and find a new run QRG as he was taking out
all but the stronger callers. On the way out I informed he should be
ashamed transmitting such a garbage signal. He replied to the effect
if you don't like it report me. 

Ops with this attitude who don't respect their neighbors nor have any
pride in their signal shall prevail until the sponsors act. Offenders
operate with impunity, maintain a clear run QRG and have higher
scores as a result.

Solution is simple, one yellow carding or delisting to check log and
these guys would have a clean signal in the next contest guaranteed.
But that is up to the sponsors. I'm not holding my breath.

Pres, N6ss


> Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 12:36:21 -0500
> From: Roger D Johnson 
> Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <4edbaf95.9050...@roadrunner.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> Many of the stations had very clicky signals making it almost impossible
> to hear anything between them. As this prevents someone getting close to
> them and not having any reason to generate a clean signal, this problem
> will persist.
> 
> 73, Roger


Share photos & screenshots in seconds...
TRY FREE IM TOOLPACK at http://www.imtoolpack.com/default.aspx?rc=if1
Works in all emails, instant messengers, blogs, forums and social networks.


___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: My take on ARRL 160 (MAR)

[ZR]

Yeah, but how many work the 160 contest under discussion and how many other 
contests use the MAR multiplier?

Carl
KM1H


- Original Message - 
From: "Mike & Coreen Smith" 
To: "Topband" 
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: My take on ARRL 160 (MAR)


> You may be partially right, but we have 35 members in the Maritime Contest
> Club and another 4 or 5 active or semi active stations that contest, that
> are NOT part of the club.  Granted , not everyone is on for every contest,
> but as I said before, for any of the popular contests, we are much more
> prevalent than some sections or States in the USA.
> I would say on average and as an example we have 10 ACTIVE members for the
> CQWW contests.
> Try finding 10 Rhode Island, Delaware , Montana or East Bay stations on !
>
> Mike VE9AA
>
> Mike, Coreen & Corey Smith
> 699 Rte 616 Keswick Ridge
> NB
> Canada
> E6L 1T1
>  - Original Message - 
>  From: ZR
>  To: Mike & Coreen Smith ; Topband
>  Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 12:52 PM
>  Subject: Re: Topband: My take on ARRL 160 (MAR)
>
>
>  Low ham population and a small geographical area Mike.
>
>  You, or anyone else aint gonna change the ARRL for any reason...its a
>  dictatorship.
>
>  Carl
>  KM1H
>
>
>  - Original Message - 
>  From: "Mike & Coreen Smith" 
>  To: "Topband" 
>  Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 10:49 AM
>  Subject: Re: Topband: My take on ARRL 160 (MAR)
>
>
>  > In a slightly different vein (but keeping with the same theme overall
>  > theme).
>  >
>  > "MAR" section includes NB (VE9), NS (VE1) and VY2 (PEI).sometimes
> MAR
>  > even included VO1 and VO2 !!!
>  >
>  > We have to compete against hams in three provinces for most ARRL
> contests.
>  > Does RI get lumped in with EMA and CT? - Nope!
>  > Does Montana get lumped in with Wyoming and Kansas?  - Nope!
>  >
>  > Why is it the ARRL sees it fit to make three provinces compete against
> one
>  > another?
>  > Tell me what other 48 contiguous states compete against one another?
>  >
>  > Maybe 50 years ago there was little to no activity in, what was then,
>  > always
>  > VE1, but for most any semi-major or major contest that happens, you 
> will
>  > work 5-10 MAR stations with VE1, 9 and VY2 prefixes.  We've had 
> separate
>  > prefixes here since the early 1990's...approaching 20 yrs !!!
>  >
>  > I would rather compete against my province-mates.
>  >
>  > Mike VE9AA (NB and proud of it !)
>  > ___
>  > UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>  >
>  >
>  > -
>  > No virus found in this message.
>  > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>  > Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2102/4056 - Release Date: 12/04/11
>  >
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>  No virus found in this incoming message.
>  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>  Version: 8.5.454 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4053 - Release Date: 12/02/11
> 19:41:00
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2102/4056 - Release Date: 12/04/11
> 

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: My take on ARRL 160 (MAR)

[W2RU - Bud Hippisley]

On Dec 4, 2011, at 11:52 AM, KM1H wrote:

> Low ham population and a small geographical area Mike.
> 
> You, or anyone else aint gonna change the ARRL for any reason...its a 
> dictatorship.


The origin of the multipliers for the ARRL 160 contest is in the ARRL Field 
Organization structure at the time the contest came into existence.  Back then, 
the Canadian "sections" were an integral part of the ARRL field organization, 
complete with a Canadian Division director on the ARRL Board of Directors.  
That is no longer true, and so it's possible the Canadian "sections" in these 
so-called "domestic" contests are now determined by one or more of the 
following:
*  historical context
*  coin toss
*  RAC guidance to ARRL
*  ARRL contest branch / CAC determination after hearing all the input 
from everyone
*  Some other process that I'm not privy to  

I have no special insight into the current process but it seems to me that, 
since the sponsor of this particular contest IS, after all, ARRL, it is within 
their "province" to decide what constitutes a multiplier.  (Please pardon the 
pun.)

Seriously, though, I would think there would be an opportunity for amateurs in 
the Maritime Provinces to make their case to the ARRL contest branch — which 
might then ask for guidance from RAC or whoever has most recently "defined" 
list of provinces used as a basis for the "section multipliers" in this and 
Sweepstakes.

If my memory serves me correctly, this contest began in response to the 
"opening up" of 160 meters on the North American continent with the retreat of 
LORAN in this region of the world.  It was, at the time, very much a DOMESTIC 
contest, intended to help bring USA & VE amateur activity to the band, which 
had previously suffered greatly from all the split frequency ranges and very 
low power limits.  It was only later, probably after lobbying by various 
amateurs, that QSOs with DX stations got to be a significant contributor to 
scores.

For me, personally, the ARRL 160 Contest is a DOMESTIC contest; I love this 
contest because I think hunting down 80 or so "sections" — especially when nine 
of them are in California — is a whole lot more interesting for strategy than 
just having to find a single California station along with the other 49 states 
and however many provinces.  (It's my old ARRL CD Party upbringing)  It's 
also great practice for knowing the Section multipliers that you'll be looking 
for in the Sweepstakes.  For many years, I did not have a station capable of 
working Europeans in this contest.   Now I sometimes do, depending on 
propagation.  However, I still see it as a domestic contest, and the QSO points 
and multipliers given for working DX are, in my humble opinion, a distraction — 
a distraction that has led to a lot of today's chatter about the contest here 
on the reflector.

Frankly, I don't see why EVERY contest has to be a DX contest.  I especially 
don't see why the ARRL 160 Contest has to be just like the CQ 160 Contest.  But 
that's my personal opinion.

And yes, it's tough being in the national Top 10 when you're located in one of 
the outlying territories.  But that's a double-edged sword;  being in those 
territories almost guarantees you a steady stream of people wanting to work 
you, which is certainly not the case here in WNY:-)  As the sun came up 
this morning, the only pile-up I heard going on as I tuned 160 was on the lone 
Alaskan station holding forth.  I know I certainly didn't have any pile-ups at 
that point!

We can't level the playing field when we're spread all over the lot 
geographically.  On 160, distance matters, and the guys in the middle of the 
continent are going to have an easier shot at making domestic QSOs than those 
of us near one coast or the other.  And while you may prefer grid squares and 
systems like that, ask any of us in the northern parts of this continent how 
using grid squares "creates" openings for us.  If there's no propagation from 
KL7 to the "lower 48", for instance, it doesn't really matter whether the KL7s 
lost out on working a bunch of ARRL sections or couldn't get any grid square 
distance points because nobody could hear them. 

As to the ARRL 160 Contest being a training ground for new hams — I agree with 
that.  The first few years of my hamming I learned contesting in CD Parties and 
Sweepstakes because I didn't have a station that could compete for DX.  I 
learned operating procedures, I learned strategy, I learned the ARRL field 
organization, I learned North American geography, and I developed a great sense 
of fraternalism with like-minded operators from those domestic contests.   The 
only thing significantly different about getting into contesting on 160 is that 
there is a greater challenge to getting a reasonably efficient antenna up.  But 
that's why we have this reflector — to help newcomers to the band!  And unlike 
10-meter contests, we KNOW the band is

Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions

[w7...@juno.com]

How about W7IJ  who was 10 kc up and I had a drifty 519 signal off freq both 
days...Mark W7MEM

-- Original Message --
From: Roger D Johnson 
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 12:36:21 -0500

Many of the stations had very clicky signals making it almost impossible
to hear anything between them. As this prevents someone getting close to
them and not having any reason to generate a clean signal, this problem
will persist.

73, Roger


On 12/4/2011 12:02 PM, Brian_ve7jkz wrote:
>
> I was also surprised at some strong signals I called several times and
> they never came back. I put out about 400W or so to a shunt fed tower
> (56 feet with 8 element beam on top), with lots of radials, and like to
> think I get out reasonably well for what I have. So if some of these
> very strong signal stations don't hear me and continue CQ'ing what does
> it mean? Maybe they have very high noise levels in which case putting
> out a mega signal doesn't buy much if they can't hear those
> calling..? I would add that my home brew radio has a very neat way
> of ensuring I'm bang on zero beat so that's not the problem.
>
> Tnx to all 205 who worked me.
>
> Brian VE7JKZ
> ___
>
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4edbbdc761e7c88ab73st01duc
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions

[W5JR - Mike]

Dead on Zero Beat is OK if there is only one station ZB. Same is true is there 
is only one station up or down X number of hertz. The problem with newer 
transceivers and the skimmers is that several answer ZB and that last filter, 
the old ear, can't separate them when the signals are similar in signal 
strength. Just a 10 Hz difference is enough to sort out a weaker one from a 
strong one. 

I'm sure I'm "guilty" of answering ZB from the skimmer too often. If I'm not 
getting through right away, I'll move 10-50 Hz and try again (but still inside 
the 200 Hz filter BW some use). 

What I find difficult when calling CQ is setting an acceptable compromise 
between too narrow an RX filter setting versus too wide and being able to hear 
the weak ones due to strong adjacent signals 500 Hz (or closer!) away but in 
the passband when set to 1 KHz or so. I make extensive use of the RX RIT to 
catch those off enough to be at the edge of whichever filter width I'm using at 
the moment. 

tnx
Mike / W5JR - GA

On Dec 4, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Bill Cromwell  wrote:

> On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 12:36 -0500, N1BUG wrote:
>>> "Bang on zero beat" IS a problem. I am noticing more
>>> and more of that as (Iguess) more and more guys rely
>>> on SPOTTING SOFTWARE! Agh! It doesn't make any
>>> sense to call exactly zero beat.
>> 
>> Huh? As I stated earlier, out here with the QRM and crowding if you 
>> are not darn close to zero beat you risk not being heard. There is 
>> no point in calling if you are going to be under the big gun on 
>> either side of the station you wish to work. If you are referring to 
>> possible problems with two or more calling the same station and zero 
>> beat with each other, it CAN be a problem IF both stations are near 
>> the same strength. Otherwise I find it no problem to pick the 
>> stronger one, work him, then go after the other(s). It is much 
>> faster and easier if all callers are zero beat or very close than if 
>> they are all over the place and under the adjacent QRM.
>> 
>> 73,
>> Paul
>> 
>> ___
>> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> I was going to ask Wayne off-list about that statement. The more I have
> learned the more I realize I don't know. My guess was that he might know
> or observe something that others of us have missed somehow. Now that the
> question is on the list...I would like to know, too. Why would we want
> to transmit anywhere at all other than where the calling station is
> listening? I think split operation is for DX pileups...not contests.
> Maybe that's my error.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Bill  KU8H
> 
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions

[Bill Cromwell]

On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 12:36 -0500, N1BUG wrote:
> > "Bang on zero beat" IS a problem. I am noticing more
>  > and more of that as (Iguess) more and more guys rely
>  > on SPOTTING SOFTWARE! Agh! It doesn't make any
>  > sense to call exactly zero beat.
> 
> Huh? As I stated earlier, out here with the QRM and crowding if you 
> are not darn close to zero beat you risk not being heard. There is 
> no point in calling if you are going to be under the big gun on 
> either side of the station you wish to work. If you are referring to 
> possible problems with two or more calling the same station and zero 
> beat with each other, it CAN be a problem IF both stations are near 
> the same strength. Otherwise I find it no problem to pick the 
> stronger one, work him, then go after the other(s). It is much 
> faster and easier if all callers are zero beat or very close than if 
> they are all over the place and under the adjacent QRM.
> 
> 73,
> Paul
> 
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Hi Paul,

I was going to ask Wayne off-list about that statement. The more I have
learned the more I realize I don't know. My guess was that he might know
or observe something that others of us have missed somehow. Now that the
question is on the list...I would like to know, too. Why would we want
to transmit anywhere at all other than where the calling station is
listening? I think split operation is for DX pileups...not contests.
Maybe that's my error.

73,

Bill  KU8H

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions

[N1BUG]

 > "Bang on zero beat" IS a problem. I am noticing more
 > and more of that as (Iguess) more and more guys rely
 > on SPOTTING SOFTWARE! Agh! It doesn't make any
 > sense to call exactly zero beat.

Huh? As I stated earlier, out here with the QRM and crowding if you 
are not darn close to zero beat you risk not being heard. There is 
no point in calling if you are going to be under the big gun on 
either side of the station you wish to work. If you are referring to 
possible problems with two or more calling the same station and zero 
beat with each other, it CAN be a problem IF both stations are near 
the same strength. Otherwise I find it no problem to pick the 
stronger one, work him, then go after the other(s). It is much 
faster and easier if all callers are zero beat or very close than if 
they are all over the place and under the adjacent QRM.

73,
Paul

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions

[Roger D Johnson]

Many of the stations had very clicky signals making it almost impossible
to hear anything between them. As this prevents someone getting close to
them and not having any reason to generate a clean signal, this problem
will persist.

73, Roger


On 12/4/2011 12:02 PM, Brian_ve7jkz wrote:
>
> I was also surprised at some strong signals I called several times and
> they never came back. I put out about 400W or so to a shunt fed tower
> (56 feet with 8 element beam on top), with lots of radials, and like to
> think I get out reasonably well for what I have. So if some of these
> very strong signal stations don't hear me and continue CQ'ing what does
> it mean? Maybe they have very high noise levels in which case putting
> out a mega signal doesn't buy much if they can't hear those
> calling..? I would add that my home brew radio has a very neat way
> of ensuring I'm bang on zero beat so that's not the problem.
>
> Tnx to all 205 who worked me.
>
> Brian VE7JKZ
> ___
>
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Topband: ARRL 160 viewed from EU

[Dr. Wolf Ostwald]

hi reflectees !
This years ARRL160 did not yield the propagation we had last year. There 
was an unpenetrable curtain from VE2 thru the great plains down to the 
rocky mountain division. At least true from my 50deg north location. No 
w7 or w6 stns heard, no western W0s either. The westernmost stations 
worked, follow a nice curvature beyond which a nice black hole seemed to 
be existing. Minnesota was the northwesternmost DX.
Southern Texan stations were the only ones peeking around the corner of 
auroral activity zones in the south. Anything west or north was 
fabulously shielded.
On the other hand i must say that all the stations i called and worked ( 
only 124 ) had good ears - despite the QRM they surely had. Due to the 
lousy condx, i only put a total of 7 hrs of op-time into the test - more 
op-time would have found me sleeping in front of my radio for sure.
But it sure was fun again, not every year is for breaking records :-)
73 until next years ARRL160de wolf   df2py
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions

[Wayne Mills]

"Bang on zero beat" IS a problem. I am noticing more and more of that as (I
guess) more and more guys rely on SPOTTING SOFTWARE! Agh! It doesn't
make any sense to call exactly zero beat.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, using directional receive only antennas
seems to be a problem. Maybe I can't hear a station at all without my rx
antenna, but maybe I can't hear others in the wrong direction. I haven't
figured out the best way to use directional rx antennas. Maybe the someone
needs to develop antenna scanning software ;-) 

Wayne, N7NG
Jackson Hole

-Original Message-
From: topband-boun...@contesting.com [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com]
On Behalf Of Brian_ve7jkz
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 10:02 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: ARRL 160 conditions

Very disappointing indeed, although always nice to work the east coast, 
ME, WNY, VA, MAR (PEI) etc from the wet coast. And CE3 was a nice one. 
For the propagation experts out there did the poor conditions reflect 
the increasing solar flux as the new cycle gets going? Or is it just one 
of those things?

I was also surprised at some strong signals I called several times and 
they never came back. I put out about 400W or so to a shunt fed tower 
(56 feet with 8 element beam on top), with lots of radials, and like to 
think I get out reasonably well for what I have. So if some of these 
very strong signal stations don't hear me and continue CQ'ing what does 
it mean? Maybe they have very high noise levels in which case putting 
out a mega signal doesn't buy much if they can't hear those 
calling..? I would add that my home brew radio has a very neat way 
of ensuring I'm bang on zero beat so that's not the problem.

Tnx to all 205 who worked me.

Brian VE7JKZ
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK


___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: My take on ARRL 160 (MAR)

[Mike & Coreen Smith]

You may be partially right, but we have 35 members in the Maritime Contest 
Club and another 4 or 5 active or semi active stations that contest, that 
are NOT part of the club.  Granted , not everyone is on for every contest, 
but as I said before, for any of the popular contests, we are much more 
prevalent than some sections or States in the USA.
I would say on average and as an example we have 10 ACTIVE members for the 
CQWW contests.
Try finding 10 Rhode Island, Delaware , Montana or East Bay stations on !

Mike VE9AA

Mike, Coreen & Corey Smith
699 Rte 616 Keswick Ridge
NB
Canada
E6L 1T1
  - Original Message - 
  From: ZR
  To: Mike & Coreen Smith ; Topband
  Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 12:52 PM
  Subject: Re: Topband: My take on ARRL 160 (MAR)


  Low ham population and a small geographical area Mike.

  You, or anyone else aint gonna change the ARRL for any reason...its a
  dictatorship.

  Carl
  KM1H


  - Original Message - 
  From: "Mike & Coreen Smith" 
  To: "Topband" 
  Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 10:49 AM
  Subject: Re: Topband: My take on ARRL 160 (MAR)


  > In a slightly different vein (but keeping with the same theme overall
  > theme).
  >
  > "MAR" section includes NB (VE9), NS (VE1) and VY2 (PEI).sometimes 
MAR
  > even included VO1 and VO2 !!!
  >
  > We have to compete against hams in three provinces for most ARRL 
contests.
  > Does RI get lumped in with EMA and CT? - Nope!
  > Does Montana get lumped in with Wyoming and Kansas?  - Nope!
  >
  > Why is it the ARRL sees it fit to make three provinces compete against 
one
  > another?
  > Tell me what other 48 contiguous states compete against one another?
  >
  > Maybe 50 years ago there was little to no activity in, what was then,
  > always
  > VE1, but for most any semi-major or major contest that happens, you will
  > work 5-10 MAR stations with VE1, 9 and VY2 prefixes.  We've had separate
  > prefixes here since the early 1990's...approaching 20 yrs !!!
  >
  > I would rather compete against my province-mates.
  >
  > Mike VE9AA (NB and proud of it !)
  > ___
  > UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
  >
  >
  > -
  > No virus found in this message.
  > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  > Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2102/4056 - Release Date: 12/04/11
  >



--



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 8.5.454 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4053 - Release Date: 12/02/11 
19:41:00
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Topband: ARRL 160

[Charles W. Shaw]

Yes, But,

 From southeast New Mexico, on my Saturday AM,  I found that 
JA stations were the loudest I have ever heard any of them in any 
contest for the past 24 years.  I was CQing and they answered 
me--loud.  Sunday morning, fewer JA's and not quite as loud.  Best DX 
to the NE was a couple of MAR.  To the South, CE1 and ZF;  Southeast, 
only VP2 and PJ2.  No central or south Pacific and no AK.  I was only 
on for a few short periods.

 So I suppose that disregarding the personal choices made by 
the DX, at least part of the propagation was pretty good 
sometimes.  Could have been better, but has been much 
worse!  Important:  our location and the 160 meter Spotlight.

 Thanks for the QSO's!

73,
Charles Shaw - N5UL
Hobbs, NM
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Topband: ARRL 160 conditions

[Brian_ve7jkz]

Very disappointing indeed, although always nice to work the east coast, 
ME, WNY, VA, MAR (PEI) etc from the wet coast. And CE3 was a nice one. 
For the propagation experts out there did the poor conditions reflect 
the increasing solar flux as the new cycle gets going? Or is it just one 
of those things?

I was also surprised at some strong signals I called several times and 
they never came back. I put out about 400W or so to a shunt fed tower 
(56 feet with 8 element beam on top), with lots of radials, and like to 
think I get out reasonably well for what I have. So if some of these 
very strong signal stations don't hear me and continue CQ'ing what does 
it mean? Maybe they have very high noise levels in which case putting 
out a mega signal doesn't buy much if they can't hear those 
calling..? I would add that my home brew radio has a very neat way 
of ensuring I'm bang on zero beat so that's not the problem.

Tnx to all 205 who worked me.

Brian VE7JKZ
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: My take on ARRL 160 (MAR)

[ZR]

Low ham population and a small geographical area Mike.

You, or anyone else aint gonna change the ARRL for any reason...its a 
dictatorship.

Carl
KM1H


- Original Message - 
From: "Mike & Coreen Smith" 
To: "Topband" 
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: Topband: My take on ARRL 160 (MAR)


> In a slightly different vein (but keeping with the same theme overall
> theme).
>
> "MAR" section includes NB (VE9), NS (VE1) and VY2 (PEI).sometimes MAR
> even included VO1 and VO2 !!!
>
> We have to compete against hams in three provinces for most ARRL contests.
> Does RI get lumped in with EMA and CT? - Nope!
> Does Montana get lumped in with Wyoming and Kansas?  - Nope!
>
> Why is it the ARRL sees it fit to make three provinces compete against one
> another?
> Tell me what other 48 contiguous states compete against one another?
>
> Maybe 50 years ago there was little to no activity in, what was then, 
> always
> VE1, but for most any semi-major or major contest that happens, you will
> work 5-10 MAR stations with VE1, 9 and VY2 prefixes.  We've had separate
> prefixes here since the early 1990's...approaching 20 yrs !!!
>
> I would rather compete against my province-mates.
>
> Mike VE9AA (NB and proud of it !)
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2102/4056 - Release Date: 12/04/11
> 

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Topband: My Take on ARRL 160

[Eddy Swynar]

On 4 December Mike wrote:

"MAR" section includes NB (VE9), NS (VE1) and VY2 (PEI).sometimes MAR even 
included VO1 and VO2 !!! We have to compete against hams in three provinces for 
most ARRL contests. Does RI get lumped in with EMA and  CT? - Nope! Does 
Montana get lumped in with Wyoming and Kansas?  - Nope! Why is it the ARRL sees 
it fit to make three provinces compete against one another?

Hi Mike,

Some 15 - 20 years ago I petitioned the ARRL Contest Advisory Committee on just 
that point---but for another contest, the name of which escapes me just now...

Anyway, they agreed & incorporated the SEPARATE PROVINCES in that one as 
multipliers, rather than the catch-all "MAR."

Similarly, way-back-when I petitioned them about having the Canadian equivalent 
of a U.S. Novice station, so that we here in "VE"-land might also incorporate a 
"Novice" tent in Field Day---they agreed on that one, too, I'm happy to say...

The trick, I've found, is to write CARBON COPY LETTERS of your appeal to your 
individual CAC rep, as well as the CAC Chairman---the more noise you might 
make, the better. It's certainly worthwhile doing, & if your case is strong 
enough it has a good chance of at least being considered...

~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: My take on ARRL 160

[Eddy Swynar]

On 2011-12-04, at 10:51 AM, Mike Fatchett W0MU wrote:

> I didn't realize that 160 and all its challenges to get on this band 
> with a decent xmit and receive antennas was the birthplace of new 
> contesters.
> 

hi Mike,

Well it certainly was for me! 

Topband and---believe it, or not---Field Day were probably two of the biggest 
contest / antenna improvement influencers in my Ham career...

When you start out in the ARRL 160n contest in the mid-70's on a university 
student budget, running a Johnson Ranger-1, Hallicrafters S-77A, & an 80-meter 
open-wire fed dipole, where else CAN you go but up...?!

~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: My take on ARRL 160

[Michael G. Carper]

On the point of being zero-beat with the station you're calling... you
almost need to run CW Skimmer for that here.  I called a station - exactly
zero beat... and a station just below me was answering back.

-Original Message-
From: topband-boun...@contesting.com [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com]
On Behalf Of N1BUG
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 8:41 AM
To: Topband
Subject: Topband: My take on ARRL 160

I've decided to put my oar in the water regarding the comments on 
ARRL 160. I didn't operate this year but it is my favorite 160 
contest and the only one I would seriously enter.

Why? Because mostly it does end up being a domestic contest and I 
have some chance of being competitive with my modest station and 
limited real estate. There is no way on Earth I could ever be 
competitive in the DX contests but I can in ARRL 160. I do 
understand about it being unfair to the rest of the world and 
especially U.S. territories. In addition I am increasingly of the 
opinion having so many contests is unfair to a great many people. I 
love a good contest, but I don't think we need one nearly every 
weekend during the topband "season" in the northern hemisphere.

As for not being heard... here in the northeast, QRM is INCREDIBLE 
in ARRL 160. It is a very popular contest and let's face it, there 
just isn't enough useful spectrum. Even people who normally hear 
very well may be challenged in this one.

We cannot pause for more than a couple seconds between CQs or some 
big gun will try to take over our run frequency and refuse to move. 
Callers need to be quick.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of getting on frequency. 
Make sure you can zero beat and get EXACTLY on frequency of the 
station you are calling. It is amazing to me how many people cannot 
seem to do that. I always have callers 200 and even 300 Hz high and 
low, and then they wonder why I don't hear them. I don't hear them 
because 200 to 300 Hz away is someone else's run frequency and I am 
forced to use a 200 Hz filter with very steep skirts. That is how 
crowded the band is during this contest. It does no good for me to 
tune for off frequency callers. A distant caller who is S5 but 
insists on calling under another running station who is S9+20 or 
more is not likely to be heard. At least not by me!

Those are my comments. I'll go back to being silent now.

73,
Paul N1BUG

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: My take on ARRL 160

[Mike Fatchett W0MU]

I didn't realize that 160 and all its challenges to get on this band 
with a decent xmit and receive antennas was the birthplace of new 
contesters.

On 12/4/11 8:39 AM, Herb Schoenbohm wrote:
> On 12/4/2011 11:09 AM, Eddy Swynar wrote:
>
> Rather than decry the format of the event, why not celebrate it as a 
> potential birthplace for to-morrow's contestors...?
>
>
>
>
>
> EddyI will tell you why..The ARRL 160 is and always has been a 
> disappointment in turn out and DX.  Not so much that it treats the amateurs 
> in the U.S. Territories as second class hams, but the fact that it not even a 
> challenge as a radio competition to participate in.  For station only miles 
> away in VP2V there could be some interests but even there they are prohibited 
> from working any real DX  and must EPA in the log a zillion times.  At least 
> their results will get listed in the QST published results if they get on for 
> more than a few hours.
>
> In a contest that scores KH0, KH8, KH2 (and alll the other U.S. possession in 
> the Pacific  in the same category as Hawaii just makes no sense.  It appears 
> the ARRL/CAC is infactuated with the ARRL sections thing.  But wait, they 
> have the ARRL Sweepstakes and that covers 160-10 and excludes DX.
>
> Now if you want a contest design that as you said "celebrates it as a 
> potential birthplace for to-morrow's contestors,"  I would ask you only to 
> compare the Stew Perry Topband Distance challenge.  This is a superb model 
> and allows competition of all types of entries where low power and QRP get 
> significant boost, especially if you work one.  The SP is not designed to 
> molify someones ego at Newington with this EPA thing but rather serves as a 
> fair and balance competition designed for 160 meters by 160 meter operators.  
> Remember years ago when Charles O'Brian, W2EQS (sk) came up with the CQ 160 
> meter contest idea.  There is no question that it is one of the most popular 
> low band contests with the SP close behind.
>
> There is this sclerosis and atrophy, it appears, by those in charge in 
> Newington and the CAC members who really don't care that much about 160 
> meters.  So it is what it is, a bummer of a contest for most.  Why is it so 
> difficult for them to make a simple change in the rules to reflect what is DX 
> and what isn't?  Last night I got some raspberries for calling CQ EU only 
> even though there were two other KP2's active during the contest.  On Friday 
> night my call operated remotely from NYC gave out 100 mainland contacts while 
> I held my nose.  As far as the 160 meter ARRl DX contest is concerned, I just 
> quote Roberto Duran, "No Mas"
>
>
> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
>
>
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: My take on ARRL 160 (MAR)

[Mike & Coreen Smith]

In a slightly different vein (but keeping with the same theme overall 
theme).

"MAR" section includes NB (VE9), NS (VE1) and VY2 (PEI).sometimes MAR 
even included VO1 and VO2 !!!

We have to compete against hams in three provinces for most ARRL contests.
Does RI get lumped in with EMA and CT? - Nope!
Does Montana get lumped in with Wyoming and Kansas?  - Nope!

Why is it the ARRL sees it fit to make three provinces compete against one 
another?
Tell me what other 48 contiguous states compete against one another?

Maybe 50 years ago there was little to no activity in, what was then, always 
VE1, but for most any semi-major or major contest that happens, you will 
work 5-10 MAR stations with VE1, 9 and VY2 prefixes.  We've had separate 
prefixes here since the early 1990's...approaching 20 yrs !!!

I would rather compete against my province-mates.

Mike VE9AA (NB and proud of it !)
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: My take on ARRL 160

[Herb Schoenbohm]

On 12/4/2011 11:09 AM, Eddy Swynar wrote:

Rather than decry the format of the event, why not celebrate it as a potential 
birthplace for to-morrow's contestors...?





EddyI will tell you why..The ARRL 160 is and always has been a 
disappointment in turn out and DX.  Not so much that it treats the amateurs in 
the U.S. Territories as second class hams, but the fact that it not even a 
challenge as a radio competition to participate in.  For station only miles 
away in VP2V there could be some interests but even there they are prohibited 
from working any real DX  and must EPA in the log a zillion times.  At least 
their results will get listed in the QST published results if they get on for 
more than a few hours.

In a contest that scores KH0, KH8, KH2 (and alll the other U.S. possession in 
the Pacific  in the same category as Hawaii just makes no sense.  It appears 
the ARRL/CAC is infactuated with the ARRL sections thing.  But wait, they have 
the ARRL Sweepstakes and that covers 160-10 and excludes DX.

Now if you want a contest design that as you said "celebrates it as a potential 
birthplace for to-morrow's contestors,"  I would ask you only to compare the 
Stew Perry Topband Distance challenge.  This is a superb model and allows 
competition of all types of entries where low power and QRP get significant 
boost, especially if you work one.  The SP is not designed to molify someones 
ego at Newington with this EPA thing but rather serves as a fair and balance 
competition designed for 160 meters by 160 meter operators.  Remember years ago 
when Charles O'Brian, W2EQS (sk) came up with the CQ 160 meter contest idea.  
There is no question that it is one of the most popular low band contests with 
the SP close behind.

There is this sclerosis and atrophy, it appears, by those in charge in 
Newington and the CAC members who really don't care that much about 160 meters. 
 So it is what it is, a bummer of a contest for most.  Why is it so difficult 
for them to make a simple change in the rules to reflect what is DX and what 
isn't?  Last night I got some raspberries for calling CQ EU only even though 
there were two other KP2's active during the contest.  On Friday night my call 
operated remotely from NYC gave out 100 mainland contacts while I held my nose. 
 As far as the 160 meter ARRl DX contest is concerned, I just quote Roberto 
Duran, "No Mas"


Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ


___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: My take on ARRL 160

[Eddy Swynar]

Hi All,

Well, my station here is HARDLY the "...last word" when it comes to contesting 
& the 160-meter band...

But I must say, I really & truly enjoy getting on the ARRL Topband event (been 
doing it, off & on, since the mid 70's), and giving the ON multiplier to those 
seeking new sections to work---especially to those guys out in the west coast, 
many of whom seem to be genuinely thrilled to work across the continent, if 
judging by the added "TU" & "GL" that many add at the conclusion of their 
exchange is any indicator...

I recall back in my formative forays on the band that working into 6- & 7-land 
was a real joy for me: I think that it still is that way for many who may be 
just "...getting their feet wet" for the first time on 1.8-MHz. 

Why deny these newbies a venue to flex their muscles this way? As has been 
already pointed-out here, there are ample opportunities for the established 
seasoned DX'ers amongst us to strut their stuff each season on other 
contests---so what if the ARRL affair is, in essence, a "WAS party"...? 
Everyone has to start somewhere---the neophyte whom you thrilled last night by 
working him could very well be the next Big Gun competing shoulder-to-shoulder 
with you in an event coming your way very soon. 

Rather than decry the format of the event, why not celebrate it as a potential 
birthplace for to-morrow's contestors...?

~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: My take on ARRL 160

[James Rodenkirch]

I figured that QRM was a HUGE problem on the east side of the country, Paul, 
and the major reason why they couldn't hear my peanut whistle signal!!

I agree that the Top Band contests during December are a bit much BUT I'm in 
them 'cuz I need about 10 states for QRP WAS on 160 - mostly east coast states 
- so thought I'd participate this year (haven't been in the ARRL event for a 
year and glad to get on Top Band more) but...not successful this year.

Wouldn't you know it - one of the states needed is ME!  Hah

Thanks for taking the time to "clarify" things, a little, for us peanut whistle 
generators out here in s/w Utah


> Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 08:40:47 -0500
> From: p...@n1bug.com
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: My take on ARRL 160
> 
> I've decided to put my oar in the water regarding the comments on 
> ARRL 160. I didn't operate this year but it is my favorite 160 
> contest and the only one I would seriously enter.
> 
> Why? Because mostly it does end up being a domestic contest and I 
> have some chance of being competitive with my modest station and 
> limited real estate. There is no way on Earth I could ever be 
> competitive in the DX contests but I can in ARRL 160. I do 
> understand about it being unfair to the rest of the world and 
> especially U.S. territories. In addition I am increasingly of the 
> opinion having so many contests is unfair to a great many people. I 
> love a good contest, but I don't think we need one nearly every 
> weekend during the topband "season" in the northern hemisphere.
> 
> As for not being heard... here in the northeast, QRM is INCREDIBLE 
> in ARRL 160. It is a very popular contest and let's face it, there 
> just isn't enough useful spectrum. Even people who normally hear 
> very well may be challenged in this one.
> 
> We cannot pause for more than a couple seconds between CQs or some 
> big gun will try to take over our run frequency and refuse to move. 
> Callers need to be quick.
> 
> I cannot emphasize enough the importance of getting on frequency. 
> Make sure you can zero beat and get EXACTLY on frequency of the 
> station you are calling. It is amazing to me how many people cannot 
> seem to do that. I always have callers 200 and even 300 Hz high and 
> low, and then they wonder why I don't hear them. I don't hear them 
> because 200 to 300 Hz away is someone else's run frequency and I am 
> forced to use a 200 Hz filter with very steep skirts. That is how 
> crowded the band is during this contest. It does no good for me to 
> tune for off frequency callers. A distant caller who is S5 but 
> insists on calling under another running station who is S9+20 or 
> more is not likely to be heard. At least not by me!
> 
> Those are my comments. I'll go back to being silent now.
> 
> 73,
> Paul N1BUG
> 
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
  
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Topband: My take on ARRL 160

[N1BUG]

I've decided to put my oar in the water regarding the comments on 
ARRL 160. I didn't operate this year but it is my favorite 160 
contest and the only one I would seriously enter.

Why? Because mostly it does end up being a domestic contest and I 
have some chance of being competitive with my modest station and 
limited real estate. There is no way on Earth I could ever be 
competitive in the DX contests but I can in ARRL 160. I do 
understand about it being unfair to the rest of the world and 
especially U.S. territories. In addition I am increasingly of the 
opinion having so many contests is unfair to a great many people. I 
love a good contest, but I don't think we need one nearly every 
weekend during the topband "season" in the northern hemisphere.

As for not being heard... here in the northeast, QRM is INCREDIBLE 
in ARRL 160. It is a very popular contest and let's face it, there 
just isn't enough useful spectrum. Even people who normally hear 
very well may be challenged in this one.

We cannot pause for more than a couple seconds between CQs or some 
big gun will try to take over our run frequency and refuse to move. 
Callers need to be quick.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of getting on frequency. 
Make sure you can zero beat and get EXACTLY on frequency of the 
station you are calling. It is amazing to me how many people cannot 
seem to do that. I always have callers 200 and even 300 Hz high and 
low, and then they wonder why I don't hear them. I don't hear them 
because 200 to 300 Hz away is someone else's run frequency and I am 
forced to use a 200 Hz filter with very steep skirts. That is how 
crowded the band is during this contest. It does no good for me to 
tune for off frequency callers. A distant caller who is S5 but 
insists on calling under another running station who is S9+20 or 
more is not likely to be heard. At least not by me!

Those are my comments. I'll go back to being silent now.

73,
Paul N1BUG

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: Top band conditions suring ARRL 160

[James Rodenkirch]

Merv: I'm with you on this!  There were a noticeable number of strong stations 
who didn't copy my QRP signal YET.there were LOTs of stations that did copy 
me just fine, returning my call after one call, copying my info after sending 
onceguess there must be areas where QRN is high and only the "strong make 
it through."  Hi Hi

72, Jim Rodenkirch, K9JWV

I'm also waiting for the Stew --- someone hears my weak (weak as in NOT S9 
strength) signal they'll pay attention 'cuz I just might be worth four points, 
not just two!

 


> Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 19:05:54 -1000
> From: k...@flex.com
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Top band conditions suring ARRL 160
> 
> 
> > On 12/3/2011 7:09 PM, Hardy Landskov wrote:
> >
> >> he reason there are not
> >> more stations outside of US participate is that this contest turns out to 
> >> be
> >> an ARRL 160 Sweepstakes at least this is my opinion from the Westcoast.
> >>  
> > Yes.As a protest of scoring rules that make it an "east coast works
> > Europe and ignores everyone else" contest, I'm putting in a few hours
> > running QRP so I'm working only the west coast guys. I'll be on full
> > time for the Stew Perry.
> >
> > 73, Jim K9YC
> >
> Not that it makes a fart in a windstorm worth of difference to the 
> ARRL,  but I have done the same,
> I gave a few contacts to west coast stations and will not participate in 
> the contest.
> Another reason is the amount of deaf stations that seem to be on the 
> band for this one.  The ratio
> of S9 plus signals that cannot copy someone calling is at all time highs.
> Stew is the contest for 160.
> 73 Merv K9FD/KH6
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
  
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK