Joined: Sat, Apr 4th 1998, 00:00 Roles: N/A Moderates: N/A

Latest Topics

Topic Created Posts Views Last Activity
Forums demoted? Aug 18th 2013, 18:36 10 825 on 28/8/13
Why isn't there more action on ARRL forum? Sep 13th 2012, 00:48 11 3,253 on 29/1/13
Forum avatars? Aug 17th 2011, 16:45 5 1,591 on 21/8/11
Operating Furniture Aug 17th 2011, 01:52 10 3,338 on 27/12/12
Radiolocation News Jul 27th 2011, 01:52 3 1,741 on 28/7/11
General Comments Jul 24th 2011, 21:46 22 7,403 on 29/7/11

Latest Posts

Topic Author Posted On
SWR/Power Meter Irratic K6JMQ 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Your typical SWR meter is only accurate for power when it is close to 1:1 SWR. That's what you see with your dummy load. Being 20 - 40% high would not seem unusual to me. If you used the antenna tuner, you'd probably get better readings for power.

73 Martin AA6E
FLdigi locking up VH radio AE7PT 3 weeks ago
This is not a good place to ask support questions about specific products like fldigi. Check out the Yahoo discussion groups listed on the W1HKJ page.

73 Martin AA6E
Browsing QST prior to 2012 AC8SA 3 weeks, 5 days ago
The main reason to OCR the scans is so that you can do full text searches. In my experience, searching the old journals is very hard. The titles were often poorly chosen (they don't really describe the contents), and there is no good keyword system. So unless you know the author or the title, it's pretty hard to find anything.

The newer PDF files, if you haven't noticed, appear to include a text version so that you can search for text while viewing the image format. It would be really good to have that feature on all historical publications.

73 Martin AA6E
Browsing QST prior to 2012 AC8SA on 18/11/14
The original ARRL CDROMs used poor (by modern standards) scans and they were packaged with ancient Windows software - 16 bit, I think. So it's rather difficult to use them with modern computers, and it would not make sense to distribute them today. They need to be redone with high quality scans, OCR, and a good archival format like PDF -- IMHO.

73 Martin AA6E
Contest QSOs: Valid for LoTW entry? NE8K on 18/11/14
It's a good thing to put your QSOs into LoTW, but it doesn't have anything to do with contesting AFAIK. It's so that you and your contacts can get award credits for WAS, DXCC, etc. Your QSO information has to match with the other guy's - callsigns, band, mode, and (very important) date and time. If the UTCs are off by more than 30 minutes plus or minus, LoTW does not get a match. There's no problem with a very short QSO. Names and other info don't count for a match. See .

As you're finding out, it's hard to keep track of the required logging info by hand unless you're well organized. Most people will be using computer logging programs. If they're interfaced with the rig, they can record time, band, mode, and frequency info automatically. You mostly just have to enter the callsign and required info exchange. They can plug in an automatic "59" report, too. I don't know if honest signal reports are expected by anybody! What matters for LoTW is that the other guy has a matching entry for yours, but the RST report is not important.

(Take this with a grain of salt. I don't do many contests, but I do use LoTW!)

73 Martin AA6E

Back to Top