eHam Logo

Community
 Home
 eHam.net Home
 Articles & Stories
 Contesting Wiki
 Speakout
 Strays
 Survey
 My Profile

Resources
 This Week's Contests
 Classified Ads
 Contest Links
 Product Reviews



Contest Lists
 3830
 CQ-Contest
 CT-User
 NA-User
 SD-User
 TRLog
 VHFcontesting
 WriteLog

Other Lists
 Amps
 AntennaWare
 Propagation
 RFI
 RTTY
 TenTec
 TopBand
 TowerTalk
 Yaesu

 Mailing List FAQs


Site Information
 About This Site
 Contesting.com Team

Contesting Online Survey

Survey Question Current Survey Question

Recently the RDXC committee reclassified P3F to high power from low power without publicly providing strong evidence that any infraction had occurred. They concluded was that the contestant was running HP on 80/40m but not full-time, just 10 minutes here and there without any convincing evidence. It appears they used the RBN as their source of information. Should the RXDC contest have to publicly provide convincing evidence before reclassifying a station from LP to HP?

Recent Surveys

Randy, K5ZD, wrote a sidebar titled " Convergence and Change" in the 2015 CQWW CW printed results in CQ magazine. He wrote that the "convergence of personal computers, Internet access, DX clusters, and CW Skimmer have changed the nature of CW contesting". He goes to say that it is "more difficult to police the line between the single operator working alone and those who are using the assistance of DX spotting." In light of this convergence and change is it time to recombine SO and SOA into a single category?
2016-05-28


What's your primary Software for HF Contests ? ( no VHF/UHF ! )
2015-07-17


Are you ready the this year's winter contest season
2015-07-05


What ways have you found to be effective to attract newcomers to our hobby?
2015-04-28


What is your linear?
2015-02-09


View All Survey Questions

Have a good idea for a Contesting Online Survey question?
Enter your idea!


How was 160m propagation at your QTH this contest season compared to last year?
  Posted: Mar 01, 2006   (198 votes, 4 comments) by VE5ZX

  Much better
  Better
  The same
  Worse
  Much worse
  I don't work 160
  I don't care
    (198 votes, 4 comments)
Survey Results
Much better 14% (28)
Better 38% (76)
The same 13% (25)
Worse 12% (23)
Much worse 3% (5)
I don't work 160 18% (35)
I don't care 3% (6)

Survey Comments
Better...for sure
Defintiely better for me on the left coast (AZ). With simple antennas I was able to complete my Low Band Monitor 160M WAC in 7 weeks, by 10/25/05.(Three weeks if Eu wasnt counted, hi). That took me almost 8 weeks more last yr. 9M2AX was my best, a good catch for anyone on 160. Finished the 40K mile 160M WAC by mid-January. Fun things to work towards on 160 each season. See you next Fall for more Topband fun.

Posted by K8IA on March 30, 2006

Worse, by far...
But, I moved from 9V to YB5 and entered the black hole of Asia. Hope it gets better or I take up VHF (80m).

Posted by g4vgo on March 27, 2006

Yes, better, but...
I'd be tempted to say that condx on 160 were much better but I have to take into account that -- after 42 years as a ham -- I finally was able to put up a *real* 160m antenna! A Carolina Windom is in place located 225 feet from the shack in an RF-friendly environment. Of course, the only option was to erect it in the wrong direction, but, hey, at least it's radiating.

Posted by W2RBA on March 2, 2006

Definitely Better but...
you ain't seen nothin' yet! The cycle low will be about this time next year and 160 conditions are often better on the upslope of the new cycle, so 2007 and 2008 will likely be even better than this season.

Posted by W4ZV on March 1, 2006

To post a comment, you must be logged in.

If you are not a member, become one now!