[MiQP-Mail] CW question

[Jimk8mr at aol.com]

I fully agree that the more fixed station activity the better.   However, 
mobiles can very effectively cover a state the size of Michigan.
 
In the 2006 Ohio QSO Party (the results of which are at the printer) the  top 
five stations in number of counties worked missed 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 of  
Ohio's 88 counties.
 
Of the top three stations, 14 of the 15 counties missed were unique.   In 
other words, with one exception what those guys missed the others  worked.  Of 
the top 5 stations, only 1 county was missed by three  people.
 
So there are stations out there.  The trick is to work them.   Especially in 
a contest like MiQP - a lot of counties, 12 hours, activity spread  out among 
several bands and modes - working them all is one of the great  challenges in 
contesting.
 
And if that still seems too easy, work them all on both modes.
 
 
73  -  Jim
 
Team Special K
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 4/16/2007 10:06:12 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
n8xx at arrl.org writes:

The  problem with working all counties is that all counties aren't on 
when the  propagation is right.  For example, had I been serious with the 
GQP  yesterday, I'd have had a very hard time catching all the counties 
because  often I heard the "other half" of a mobile's contact on 20 
meters.   He never showed up on 40 from that county, which was the 
propagation that  "probably" would have worked from Michigan to that 
Georgia county at that  time. Other Georgia stations, fixed and mobiles 
were making it on  40.  

The contest might be more fun if we'd each try to convince a  fellow ham 
to get on from home in a "rare" county.   Sure,  mobiling is fun, but 
there are so many counties without a fixed station  entry (33 out of 88 
possible counties) that it's almost  embarrassing.








************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.miqp.org/pipermail/miqp-mail_miqp.org/attachments/20070416/5dedbedb/attachment.html