[OhQP-mail] Lack of CW Activity - or was it QRP or QLF?
Kenneth Silverman
kenny.k2kw at gmail.com
Tue Aug 31 22:50:43 EDT 2010
The hottest CW time is on 40m in the first hour. Last year I had a 90 first
hour, nearly all 40m CW, running 100w to a dipole at 35'. 40 CW for the
first few hours is usually hot, and then 80 and 40 in the evening hours are
usually hot.
I had over 500 CW QSOs as a SOHP, and both KW8N and I eclipsed the previous
HP record. I find it hard to say there was a lack of CW QSOs to be had. If
you look at my submission, I had about 170-180 CW QSOs on each band 20-80.
73 and thanks for all the fun this year!
Kenny K2KW
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Robert Lunsford <kb8uey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I would say it had a lot to do with location and even more with timing. I
> spent about 3 hours of the test on CW and only netted 16 QSO's. 5 of those
> were when others asked us to go to cw to meet them.
>
> Rob KB8UEY (aka W8W)
>
> --- On Tue, 8/31/10, Mike Tindor AA8IA <aa8ia at aa8ia.org> wrote:
>
> > From: Mike Tindor AA8IA <aa8ia at aa8ia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [OhQP-mail] Lack of CW Activity - or was it QRP or QLF?
> > To: "Hank Greeb" <n8xx at arrl.org>, ohqp-mail at ohqp.org
> > Cc: mrrc at contesting.com
> > Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 8:03 PM
> > 80m CW was far from disappointing to
> > me. I think it must have been more unique
> > to where you live or because you were running
> > QRP. Here in EOH I had no problem funding
> > many many CW signals on 80m. Perhaps not as
> > many as I expected. I knew that with the
> > massive PR blitz there would be increased activity -- I
> > guess I was thinking it was going to all show up on
> > CW. I doubt the contest has "gone" SSB, but
> > rather I am guessing that a significant number of first-time
> > OhQP stations that were on the air this year probably chose
> > SSB. It's a lot easier for clubs and such to
> > find SSB ops for a QSO Party I would think.
> >
> > So if the increase in SSB is directly related to the number
> > of additional stations on the air this year that weren't on
> > last year/previous years, I certainly don't mind the
> > additional SSB. I'm just saddened that I
> > didn't count on that. Had I been prepared
> > to operate on 80m SSB it certainly would have increased the
> > fun factor for me. Next year I won't make
> > that mistake, and I welcome all the additional
> > SSB. I worked a few of them, and it sure
> > sounded like they were having a lot of fun, in a very
> > relaxed sort of way. I can dig that.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hank Greeb" <n8xx at arrl.org>
> > To: <ohqp-mail at ohqp.org>
> > Cc: <mrrc at contesting.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 7:01 PM
> > Subject: [OhQP-mail] Lack of CW Activity - or was it QRP or
> > QLF?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I found a few "runs" on 75 SSB, but I was
> > semi-disappointed with 80 CW. Things seemed too run out
> > quickly, and I went to S&P and found few "new" stations
> > each time.
> > >
> > > Has the contest gone to a majority of SSB?
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OhQP-mail mailing list
> > OhQP-mail at ohqp.org
> > http://mail.ohqp.org/mailman/listinfo/ohqp-mail_ohqp.org
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OhQP-mail mailing list
> OhQP-mail at ohqp.org
> http://mail.ohqp.org/mailman/listinfo/ohqp-mail_ohqp.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ohqp.org/pipermail/ohqp-mail_ohqp.org/attachments/20100831/8945ea44/attachment.html>
More information about the Ohqp-mail
mailing list