Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: Conditions are much better today to 3Y0 land. Just went to listen on 14.023 and there they were. Put in the second VFO and found who he was in QSO with. Made exactly 1 call. He came right back. That's with 500w to Mosley 3 element. Congrats! I managed a RTTY QSO on 15 a few minutes after making that post; went out for a bike ride, and when I got back caught 'em on 12m CW and SSB and on 10m SSB. (they were spotted on 10 CW at the time as well, but not even a hint here on CW.) -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com Ham stuff for sale: http://www.w9wi.com/articles/4sale.htm I gave the 28023 a listen and could just tell they were there. Quite interesting tho. Dan/W4NTI |
#42
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Wes Stewart" wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:21:09 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" wrote: [snip] Conditions are much better today to 3Y0 land. Just went to listen on 14.023 and there they were. Put in the second VFO and found who he was in QSO with. Made exactly 1 call. He came right back. That's with 500w to Mosley 3 element. Same here. One call. Forty was an entirely different can of worms. What an embarrassment. A pack of untrained chimpanzees would have been better operators; although I'm damning chimpanzees with faint praise. I know....I listened on 40 the other evening. I left. Dan/W4NTI |
#43
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
The old rule is to consider incompetence prior to considering veniality.
What we have heard is likely to be due to a lack of understanding and mentoring. Who would continue to call while 3X is responding? Who would dump their call more than once when a partial call is used by 3X? .. on and on. A need exists to explain the ineffectiveness and inappropriateness of the strange things we heard. I do not have in mind an effective way to do the training. QST reaches too few of the problems. Dayton would only reach the convinced. Let us think how it might be done. The next DX group might not have such good natures as this group and we could suffer for it. A contributing cause on CW might be too little use of break-in. Please note that I am not talking about the 3X operators. 73 Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A. Home: |
#44
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
J. Mc Laughlin wrote:
A need exists to explain the ineffectiveness and inappropriateness of the strange things we heard. I do not have in mind an effective way to do the training. QST reaches too few of the problems. Dayton would only reach the convinced. Let us think how it might be done. The next DX group might not have such good natures as this group and we could suffer for it. People have to be reached in their local clubs and by the people who give them their exams. In a perfect world, to get a license you'd have to make some number of QSOs under supervision of an already-licensed operator who would monitor your procedures. (maybe disclose the call of your "sponsor" in the FCC DB, so that if W9WI vouches for KM4XYZ and KM4XYZ turns out to be a lid, it reflects poorly on me as well...) That's probably not practical. Radio clubs in Oak Ridge and Milwaukee recently held local 2-meter contests. Maybe some kind of similar small-scale pileup training events could be held, maybe at larger hamfests? It's important to teach operators what proper practice is, it's also important to ensure they know that just because they hear a practice on the air doesn't mean it's right! A contributing cause on CW might be too little use of break-in. I really don't think the lack of break-in is the problem; it tells you when to *stop* transmitting, but if you shouldn't have *started* transmitting in the first place... On a more or less related subject, I noted yet *another* "bust" of 3Y0X's call on DX Summit this morning. This time, he was promptly spotted again by someone else with the same busted call. For such a well-publicized DXPedition you'd think people could get their call right even without being able to copy the DX! It would be interesting to send a few envelopes to the QSL Bureau with some of these "packet bust" calls & see how many cards one picks upgrin! -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com Ham stuff for sale: http://www.w9wi.com/articles/4sale.htm |
#45
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:50:20 -0600, Win wrote:
You just about have to work a weak signal to work him. They are running veticals on 30 and 40, wire on 80, and steppers on 10, 15, and 20. last night (Saturday) the pile was as wide as the band, for the most part. But he was about 559 on 30, 40, and 80 cw for about 5 house each. With that many people calling him, it is pot luck anyway. I managed to work him on 30 Mtrs at 0639 last night. That seemed to be the best band because there was fewe lids and less QRM on his frequency. Bu,t I really need him on 40 or 80 for five band. I will be there again tonight. Win Got him on 40 SSB and 40 CW. Two calls on SSB, and CW took about an hour and a half. Didn't even use a spotter. Stacey, AA7YA |
#46
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article .net,
Dan/W4NTI wrote: Any chance you guys that have worked them or even heard them could put it on here so the rest of the folks could stand a chance. Seems every time I get on where there supposed to be the signals are poor to say the least. At the very moment your post was dated, I was in the pileup for them on 17 meters. g Made the QSO 15 minutes later. I was running 200W to a 160m dipole through a tuner (the only antenna I have at the moment). I'm pleasantly surprised that I got through at all... -- Ray WQ5L |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
any news from 3Y0X... | Dx | |||
Ohio/Penn DX Bulletin #746 | Dx | |||
3Y0X DXpedition - postponed | Dx | |||
DXpedition to Peter Island 3Y0X | Dx | |||
DXpedition to Peter Island 3Y0X | Dx |