Elecraft

Propagation

Classic

List

Threaded

30 messages Options

Kurt Cramer-3

Propagation

Today was the most difficult Elacraft SSB net I have ever seen. Two nets were running at the same time..
One on the East coast, the other on the west coast! They couldn’t hear each other. About half past the hour
I started hearing Eric in Chicago here in Arizona. I guess there were a couple of solar flares.

73 Kurt W7QHD

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

k6dgw

Re: Propagation

There have been a string of M-class flares for the last 30 hours or so.
Initial ones were in the M.8-M.9 range, recent ones somewhat smaller. A
was 8, Kp was 3 earlier this afternoon which wouldn't normally suggest
terrible conditions, but I guess if the ionization is already very weak,
any disturbance can have a large effect.

73,

Fred K6DGW
- Northern California Contest Club
- CU in the Cal QSO Party 1-2 Oct 2016
- www.cqp.org

On 7/24/2016 6:28 PM, Kurt Cramer wrote:
> Today was the most difficult Elacraft SSB net I have ever seen. Two
> nets were running at the same time.. One on the East coast, the other
> on the west coast! They couldn’t hear each other. About half past the
> hour I started hearing Eric in Chicago here in Arizona. I guess there
> were a couple of solar flares.
>
> 73 Kurt W7QHD
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

kevinr@coho.net

Re: Propagation

Just completed the second Elecraft CW Net. 40 meters was good from here
to ND as well as into ID & CA. Twenty meters was pretty long but I did
get one CA op as well as TX, ND, GA, & MI. Both bands had QSB while
forty also had some noise which rose as the net went on. Scanning
around there were quite a few signals to be found on each band.

73,

Kevin. KD5ONS ECN net control

On 7/24/2016 6:35 PM, Fred Jensen wrote:

> There have been a string of M-class flares for the last 30 hours or
> so. Initial ones were in the M.8-M.9 range, recent ones somewhat
> smaller. A was 8, Kp was 3 earlier this afternoon which wouldn't
> normally suggest terrible conditions, but I guess if the ionization is
> already very weak, any disturbance can have a large effect.
>
> 73,
>
> Fred K6DGW
> - Northern California Contest Club
> - CU in the Cal QSO Party 1-2 Oct 2016
> - www.cqp.org
>
> On 7/24/2016 6:28 PM, Kurt Cramer wrote:
>> Today was the most difficult Elacraft SSB net I have ever seen. Two
>> nets were running at the same time.. One on the East coast, the other
>> on the west coast! They couldn’t hear each other. About half past the
>> hour I started hearing Eric in Chicago here in Arizona. I guess there
>> were a couple of solar flares.
>>
>> 73 Kurt W7QHD
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

stan levandowski

Re: Propagation

In reply to this post by k6dgw

Well, science provides predictions and suggests outcomes but I'm still a
hopeless romantic who tunes the bands in spite of the numbers. Tonight
I found a completely dead 20M band at 0220Z except for a single CW QSO
in progress between WB6UIA (QRZ says Wyoming) and XE2HOE in Baja
California (La Paz). When they were finished, I gave XE2HOE a call and
got a 579. He was a steady S9 and the guy in Wyoming was S6.

I live in NY, my antenna is a 67' doublet in my attic and my rig is a
KX2 and it was running at 5 watts (I'm 100% CW and QRP).

Afterward, I tuned the band again but heard nothing. Guess everyone
read the prop stats and turned off their radios....

73, Stan WB2LQF

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 09:35 PM, Fred Jensen wrote:

> There have been a string of M-class flares for the last 30 hours or
> so. Initial ones were in the M.8-M.9 range, recent ones somewhat
> smaller. A was 8, Kp was 3 earlier this afternoon which wouldn't
> normally suggest terrible conditions, but I guess if the ionization is
> already very weak, any disturbance can have a large effect.
>
> 73,
>
> Fred K6DGW> - Northern California Contest Club
> - CU in the Cal QSO Party 1-2 Oct 2016
> - www.cqp.org
>
> On 7/24/2016 6:28 PM, Kurt Cramer wrote:
>> Today was the most difficult Elacraft SSB net I have ever seen. Two
>> nets were running at the same time.. One on the East coast, the other
>> on the west coast! They couldn’t hear each other. About half past the
>> hour I started hearing Eric in Chicago here in Arizona. I guess there
>> were a couple of solar flares.
>>
>> 73 Kurt W7QHD
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

stan levandowski

Re: Propagation

Ah, yes Ron -- Paper QSLs! On my QRZ page it says "No LoTW, no eQSL and
no Buro." I still revere old fashioned QSL cards, with handwritten
notes and some evidence that our QSO was something more than just "599
TU". Try showing your grandchildren a printout of your LoTW contacts
and see how many oohs and aahs you get ;-)

73, Stan WB2LQF

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 01:04 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> I don't "chase DX" but over the years have had a number of great,
> albeit short CW rag chews with various DX stations on a dead band.
> Usually the DX responds to my CQ, noting that they were surprised to
> hear me because the band seemed dead. So we chat for a few minutes.
> Unfortunately (depending upon your point of view) the various spotters
> would notice us, alert the 'net and soon there would be tuners on top
> of us so we'd QRT. As one DX station noted, "Sigh, here we go
> again..." and sure 'nuf pandemonium would erupt on the frequency with
> the DX station sending "UP 2 UP 2 UP 2..." while I set down my
> 'phones, refreshed my cup of tea and wrote him a thank you note on an
> old-fashioned paper QSL card.
> 73, Ron AC7AC
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elecraft [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
> stan levandowski
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 7:54 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Propagation
>
> Well, science provides predictions and suggests outcomes but I'm still
> a hopeless romantic who tunes the bands in spite of the numbers.
> Tonight I found a completely dead 20M band at 0220Z except for a
> single CW QSO in progress between WB6UIA (QRZ says Wyoming) and XE2HOE
> in Baja California (La Paz). When they were finished, I gave XE2HOE a
> call and got a 579. He was a steady S9 and the guy in Wyoming was S6.
>
>
> I live in NY, my antenna is a 67' doublet in my attic and my rig is a
> KX2 and it was running at 5 watts (I'm 100% CW and QRP).
>
> Afterward, I tuned the band again but heard nothing. Guess everyone
> read the prop stats and turned off their radios....
>
>
> 73, Stan WB2LQF
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 09:35 PM, Fred Jensen wrote:
>
>> There have been a string of M-class flares for the last 30 hours or
>> so. Initial ones were in the M.8-M.9 range, recent ones somewhat
>> smaller. A was 8, Kp was 3 earlier this afternoon which wouldn't
>> normally suggest terrible conditions, but I guess if the ionization
>> is already very weak, any disturbance can have a large effect.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Fred K6DGW> - Northern California Contest Club
>> - CU in the Cal QSO Party 1-2 Oct 2016
>> - www.cqp.org
>>
>> On 7/24/2016 6:28 PM, Kurt Cramer wrote:
>>> Today was the most difficult Elacraft SSB net I have ever seen. Two
>>> nets were running at the same time.. One on the East coast, the
>>> other
>>> on the west coast! They couldn’t hear each other. About half past
>>> the
>>> hour I started hearing Eric in Chicago here in Arizona. I guess
>>> there
>>> were a couple of solar flares.
>>>
>>> 73 Kurt W7QHD
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

Jim Brown-10

QSLs

On Mon,7/25/2016 11:34 AM, stan levandowski wrote:
> On my QRZ page it says "No LoTW, no eQSL and no Buro."

That may be your preference, but it causes everyone who wants a
confirmation from you to spend money with the postal system. When we
were kids, it cost a penny or two to send a QSL. Now, including the cost
of printing a card, it costs someone who wants your card more than $1
round trip (.49 each way) in the US, more than $2 between US and Canada,
average $3.50 to/from other countries.

LOTW and eQSL are FREE and easy to use if you're using almost any of the
popular logging software. Putting our logs on LOTW is the considerate
thing to do. It's the RIGHT thing to do. It's the modern equivalent of
what we said in the '50s -- "the last courtesy of a QSO is a QSL." Now,
the last courtesy of a QSO is an upload to LOTW.

73, Jim K9YC

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Vic Rosenthal

Re: QSLs

I couldn't agree with Jim more!

I love LOTW and wish everyone would use it.

It's not just the cost of postage for the cards themselves. I am trying
to increase my DXCC total and submitting confirmations by LOTW is so
much easier than getting cards checked by the /one/ guy in the country
who can do it, or mailing them to the ARRL in the USA and hoping that
our troubled postal service will get them there and back.

73,
Vic, 4X6GP
Rehovot, Israel
Formerly K2VCO
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/

On 25 Jul 2016 21:49, Jim Brown wrote:

> On Mon,7/25/2016 11:34 AM, stan levandowski wrote:
>> On my QRZ page it says "No LoTW, no eQSL and no Buro."
>
> That may be your preference, but it causes everyone who wants a
> confirmation from you to spend money with the postal system. When we
> were kids, it cost a penny or two to send a QSL. Now, including the cost
> of printing a card, it costs someone who wants your card more than $1
> round trip (.49 each way) in the US, more than $2 between US and Canada,
> average $3.50 to/from other countries.
>
> LOTW and eQSL are FREE and easy to use if you're using almost any of the
> popular logging software. Putting our logs on LOTW is the considerate
> thing to do. It's the RIGHT thing to do. It's the modern equivalent of
> what we said in the '50s -- "the last courtesy of a QSO is a QSL." Now,
> the last courtesy of a QSO is an upload to LOTW.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC

Fred Smith-2

Re: QSLs

In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10

Well said Jim.
73,Fred/N0AZZ

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S6 edge+, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Jim Brown <[hidden email]> Date: 7/25/16 1:49 PM (GMT-06:00) To: [hidden email] Subject: [Elecraft] QSLs
On Mon,7/25/2016 11:34 AM, stan levandowski wrote:
> On my QRZ page it says "No LoTW, no eQSL and no Buro."

That may be your preference, but it causes everyone who wants a
confirmation from you to spend money with the postal system. When we
were kids, it cost a penny or two to send a QSL. Now, including the cost
of printing a card, it costs someone who wants your card more than $1
round trip (.49 each way) in the US, more than $2 between US and Canada,
average $3.50 to/from other countries.

LOTW and eQSL are FREE and easy to use if you're using almost any of the
popular logging software. Putting our logs on LOTW is the considerate
thing to do. It's the RIGHT thing to do. It's the modern equivalent of
what we said in the '50s -- "the last courtesy of a QSO is a QSL." Now,
the last courtesy of a QSO is an upload to LOTW.

73, Jim K9YC

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Wes Stewart-2

Re: QSLs

In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10

Agreed.

On 7/25/2016 11:49 AM, Jim Brown wrote:

> On Mon,7/25/2016 11:34 AM, stan levandowski wrote:
>> On my QRZ page it says "No LoTW, no eQSL and no Buro."
>
> That may be your preference, but it causes everyone who wants a confirmation
> from you to spend money with the postal system. When we were kids, it cost a
> penny or two to send a QSL. Now, including the cost of printing a card, it
> costs someone who wants your card more than $1 round trip (.49 each way) in
> the US, more than $2 between US and Canada, average $3.50 to/from other
> countries.
>
> LOTW and eQSL are FREE and easy to use if you're using almost any of the
> popular logging software. Putting our logs on LOTW is the considerate thing to
> do. It's the RIGHT thing to do. It's the modern equivalent of what we said in
> the '50s -- "the last courtesy of a QSO is a QSL." Now, the last courtesy of a
> QSO is an upload to LOTW.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC

Bill Rowlett

Re: QSLs

In reply to this post by Vic Rosenthal

If all you want is a contact confirmation in the ARRL data base to be used for an award from ARRL, than by all means use LOTW.

LOTW is not “the last courtesy of a QSO is a QSL.” A QSL which can be held in you hand, can bring back a memory about the QSO, that is the last courtesy of the QSO, not some data in a data bank somewhere.

As for me, all CARDS go by the buro, state side manager with SASE, or direct with SASE.

Back in my hole now

Bill KC4ATU

> On Jul 25, 2016, at 4:07 PM, Vic Rosenthal 4X6GP <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I couldn't agree with Jim more!
>
> I love LOTW and wish everyone would use it.
>
> It's not just the cost of postage for the cards themselves. I am trying to increase my DXCC total and submitting confirmations by LOTW is so much easier than getting cards checked by the /one/ guy in the country who can do it, or mailing them to the ARRL in the USA and hoping that our troubled postal service will get them there and back.
>
> 73,
> Vic, 4X6GP
> Rehovot, Israel
> Formerly K2VCO
> http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
>
> On 25 Jul 2016 21:49, Jim Brown wrote:
>> On Mon,7/25/2016 11:34 AM, stan levandowski wrote:
>>> On my QRZ page it says "No LoTW, no eQSL and no Buro."
>>
>> That may be your preference, but it causes everyone who wants a
>> confirmation from you to spend money with the postal system. When we
>> were kids, it cost a penny or two to send a QSL. Now, including the cost
>> of printing a card, it costs someone who wants your card more than $1
>> round trip (.49 each way) in the US, more than $2 between US and Canada,
>> average $3.50 to/from other countries.
>>
>> LOTW and eQSL are FREE and easy to use if you're using almost any of the
>> popular logging software. Putting our logs on LOTW is the considerate
>> thing to do. It's the RIGHT thing to do. It's the modern equivalent of
>> what we said in the '50s -- "the last courtesy of a QSO is a QSL." Now,
>> the last courtesy of a QSO is an upload to LOTW.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

Wes Stewart-2

Re: QSLs

In reply to this post by Vic Rosenthal

It's almost as bad in the states if you have 160-meter cards. For the life of
me I can't understand why any card checker can't do 160 QSLs.

I still send a receive paper cards...recently bought 1000 of them, but LoTW is
great.

Wes N7WS

On 7/25/2016 1:07 PM, Vic Rosenthal 4X6GP wrote:

> I couldn't agree with Jim more!
>
> I love LOTW and wish everyone would use it.
>
> It's not just the cost of postage for the cards themselves. I am trying to
> increase my DXCC total and submitting confirmations by LOTW is so much easier
> than getting cards checked by the /one/ guy in the country who can do it, or
> mailing them to the ARRL in the USA and hoping that our troubled postal
> service will get them there and back.
>
> 73,
> Vic, 4X6GP
> Rehovot, Israel
> Formerly K2VCO
> http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/

Jim Brown-10

Re: QSLs

On Mon,7/25/2016 2:42 PM, Wes Stewart wrote:
> It's almost as bad in the states if you have 160-meter cards. For the
> life of me I can't understand why any card checker can't do 160 QSLs.

The requirement is that a card checker must have achieved 160M DXCC
him/herself before they can check 160M cards. The reason is pretty
simple -- some operators were cheating by doctoring cards -- for
example, by changing 18.1 MHz to 1.8 MHz. The logic is that a card
checker should know enough about 160M propagation (and perhaps even
activity) to know whether a QSL might be invalid because it occurs at a
time when the band could not possibly have been open between the two
stations (for example, no common darkness over a realistic path, taking
greyline into account).

Sorry, but some folks aren't ethical. :)

73, Jim K9YC

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

EricJ

Re: QSLs

In reply to this post by Fred Smith-2

Hah! You should be in So Cal. EVERYBODY wants my card. Ok, nobody, but
I'll courteously reply in kind if it ever happens.

Eric KE6US

On 7/25/2016 3:18 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> When I was first licensed in the 1950's, the cost of printing QSLs was a
> significant expense, as was the cost of International Reply Coupons if I
> didn't want to wait for the buro. I could buy a gallon of gas for 25 cents
> and a decent meal for $1.00. And, while it was far cheaper even in adjusted
> dollars than today, the cost of College was very significant.
>
> As always, I respond to a request for a QSL in whatever form the other
> station wants. Being located in Oregon I do not get a lot of requests, so
> it's not a significant burden.
>
> 73, Ron AC7AC
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S6 edge+, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> -------- Original message --------From: Jim Brown
> <[hidden email]> Date: 7/25/16 1:49 PM (GMT-06:00) To:
> [hidden email] Subject: [Elecraft] QSLs On Mon,7/25/2016 11:34 AM,
> stan levandowski wrote:
>> On my QRZ page it says "No LoTW, no eQSL and no Buro."
> That may be your preference, but it causes everyone who wants a
> confirmation from you to spend money with the postal system. When we
> were kids, it cost a penny or two to send a QSL. Now, including the cost
> of printing a card, it costs someone who wants your card more than $1
> round trip (.49 each way) in the US, more than $2 between US and Canada,
> average $3.50 to/from other countries.
>
> LOTW and eQSL are FREE and easy to use if you're using almost any of the
> popular logging software. Putting our logs on LOTW is the considerate
> thing to do. It's the RIGHT thing to do. It's the modern equivalent of
> what we said in the '50s -- "the last courtesy of a QSO is a QSL." Now,
> the last courtesy of a QSO is an upload to LOTW.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>
>

EricJ-2

Re: QSLs

In reply to this post by Fred Smith-2

Hah! You should be in So Cal. EVERYBODY wants my card. Ok, nobody, but
I'll courteously reply in kind if it ever happens.

Eric KE6US

On 7/25/2016 3:18 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
> As always, I respond to a request for a QSL in whatever form the other
> station wants. Being located in Oregon I do not get a lot of requests, so
> it's not a significant burden.
>
> 73, Ron AC7AC
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Bill-3

Re: QSLs

Putting the costs into perspective by date - it was not cheap back in
the day. I have many many QSL cards I have received over the years and
enjoy going through them. Some are simple, some are ornate, and I even
have a few that were hand made. The gist of this? You cannot view
electronic QSL cards - they are only there to serve the purpose of
proving a contact to attain some form of status.

Electronic QSLs fit right in with texting and other impersonal
activities of the digital age.

I no longer DX, except to rag chew - so I really don't care if I get a
QSL or not. But, I sure don't mind sending them and most certainly enjoy
receiving them. Anymore, I also only do direct.

Bill W2BLC K-Line
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Wes Stewart-2

Re: QSLs

In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10

I know that "logic" but doctored cards are nothing new and are always reason for
rejection. So all cards should be looked at closely by every card checker.

Besides, with the plethora of stations for hire, who says a guy in sunny CA
can't work Mt Athos on 160 using a station in dark ME.

"Sorry, but some folks aren't ethical. :) " We're supposed to avoid politics here.

On 7/25/2016 2:56 PM, Jim Brown wrote:

> On Mon,7/25/2016 2:42 PM, Wes Stewart wrote:
>> It's almost as bad in the states if you have 160-meter cards. For the life
>> of me I can't understand why any card checker can't do 160 QSLs.
>
> The requirement is that a card checker must have achieved 160M DXCC
> him/herself before they can check 160M cards. The reason is pretty simple --
> some operators were cheating by doctoring cards -- for example, by changing
> 18.1 MHz to 1.8 MHz. The logic is that a card checker should know enough about
> 160M propagation (and perhaps even activity) to know whether a QSL might be
> invalid because it occurs at a time when the band could not possibly have been
> open between the two stations (for example, no common darkness over a
> realistic path, taking greyline into account).
>
> Sorry, but some folks aren't ethical. :)
>
> 73, Jim K9YC

Jim Brown-10

Re: QSLs

On Mon,7/25/2016 6:12 PM, Wes Stewart wrote:
>
> "Sorry, but some folks aren't ethical. :) " We're supposed to avoid
> politics here.

Why is that political? Are you unaware of the widespread cheating in
some contests?

73, Jim

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Jorge Diez - CX6VM-2

Re: QSLs

In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10

That's sounds very good

But LOTW don't know about propagation and confirm any match, also when one side of the QSO was during his noon time

73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W

Enviado desde mi iPhone

> El 25 jul. 2016, a las 18:56, Jim Brown <[hidden email]> escribió:
>
>> On Mon,7/25/2016 2:42 PM, Wes Stewart wrote:
>> It's almost as bad in the states if you have 160-meter cards. For the life of me I can't understand why any card checker can't do 160 QSLs.
>
> The requirement is that a card checker must have achieved 160M DXCC him/herself before they can check 160M cards. The reason is pretty simple -- some operators were cheating by doctoring cards -- for example, by changing 18.1 MHz to 1.8 MHz. The logic is that a card checker should know enough about 160M propagation (and perhaps even activity) to know whether a QSL might be invalid because it occurs at a time when the band could not possibly have been open between the two stations (for example, no common darkness over a realistic path, taking greyline into account).
>
> Sorry, but some folks aren't ethical. :)
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

Jim Brown-10

Re: QSLs

LOTW runs on GMT (UTC). If you keep your log in UTC, all will be
confirmed. Except, of course, for a few stations that don't get it
right. But that is rare.

73, Jim K9YC

On Mon,7/25/2016 6:54 PM, Jorge Diez CX6VM wrote:
> But LOTW don't know about propagation and confirm any match, also when one side of the QSO was during his noon time

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Edward R Cole

Re: QSLs

In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10

I still do QSL cards but only if requested for a contact on HF. On
6m I QSL 100% of initial contacts. On 2m and up I QSL eme initial
contacts 100%.

If you want to work Alaska on 2m-eme then you have to work me. I'm
the only station that is regularly active.
http://www.kl7uw.com/QSL_2mEME_2011.jpg

One other station has the ability to set up his 30-foot dish on 2m
but rarely does. His eme interest is 432 and up.

So while on the topic of cards (I print my own with my computer on
card stock), I'm wondering if there is recommendations for someone
that sells photo QSL's with custom printed info? Might like to
upgrade the quality of my QSL's. I have different cards for 600m,
6m, 2m, and mw-eme plus terrestrial mw. I use the 6m card for any HF requests.

73, Ed - KL7UW
http://www.kl7uw.com
"Kits made by KL7UW"
Dubus Mag business:
[hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]