|
Re: First Contact certificate
Good thought. I still have my first card from my contact in Dec 1953. Maybe not the first but must be close. The call has expired. I was WN0RYM then and using an S38 receiver and 6L6 oscillator.
Good thought. I still have my first card from my contact in Dec 1953. Maybe not the first but must be close. The call has expired. I was WN0RYM then and using an S38 receiver and 6L6 oscillator.
|
By
Gilbert Baron
·
#1236
·
|
|
Re: First Contact certificate
My first contact award was a QSL card from the station I worked.
My first contact award was a QSL card from the station I worked.
|
By
tonydicenzo
·
#1235
·
|
|
Re: Scarborough Reef
Tony;
Very interesting video which I had not seen.
Thanks for posting
Dale H. Cole K8TS
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Tony;
Very interesting video which I had not seen.
Thanks for posting
Dale H. Cole K8TS
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
|
By
K8TS
·
#1234
·
|
|
Re: Scarborough Reef
Researching the history of the BS7, I was able to ascertain that, according to the VISUAL DXCC HISTORY which shows when entities were added, BS7 was added to the DXCC in 1995 as part of what was
Researching the history of the BS7, I was able to ascertain that, according to the VISUAL DXCC HISTORY which shows when entities were added, BS7 was added to the DXCC in 1995 as part of what was
|
By
tonydicenzo
·
#1233
·
|
|
Re: Scarborough Reef
I also only need three for # 1 HR. But they may be different entities. They are 3Y/Bouvet, YA and P5. YA is just a matter of propagation and being in the right place at the right time. Hopefully
I also only need three for # 1 HR. But they may be different entities. They are 3Y/Bouvet, YA and P5. YA is just a matter of propagation and being in the right place at the right time. Hopefully
|
By
Zack Widup
·
#1232
·
|
|
Re: Scarborough Reef
If you find this uncertainty uncomfortable, that's fine. There are plenty of DXing awards for you to pursue where the absence of activation isn't problematic.
+ Is this the ARRL's actual
If you find this uncertainty uncomfortable, that's fine. There are plenty of DXing awards for you to pursue where the absence of activation isn't problematic.
+ Is this the ARRL's actual
|
By
tonydicenzo
·
#1231
·
|
|
Re: Scarborough Reef
I expect the definition was made with Scarborough Rocks in mind. It has what looks like four surface poiints within a short distance, I wouldn't erect a flag on them let along the scaffolding to hold
I expect the definition was made with Scarborough Rocks in mind. It has what looks like four surface poiints within a short distance, I wouldn't erect a flag on them let along the scaffolding to hold
|
By
tonydicenzo
·
#1230
·
|
|
Re: Scarborough Reef
I couldn't open the file attached, but there are plenty of still and video shots of the Shoal, Rocks, and dxpedition stations on the rocks to get a sense of the topology. Two that I found
I couldn't open the file attached, but there are plenty of still and video shots of the Shoal, Rocks, and dxpedition stations on the rocks to get a sense of the topology. Two that I found
|
By
tonydicenzo
·
#1229
·
|
|
Re: Scarborough Reef
4. An Entity may be deleted from the List if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added.
Bernie McClenny, W3UR
Editor of: The Daily DX (1997-2020)
The Weekly DX (2001-2020)
4. An Entity may be deleted from the List if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added.
Bernie McClenny, W3UR
Editor of: The Daily DX (1997-2020)
The Weekly DX (2001-2020)
|
By
W3UR Bernie McClenny
·
#1228
·
|
|
Re: Scarborough Reef
+ AA6YQ comments below
Per DXCC rules:
5. Deletion Criteria
a) An Entity may be deleted from the List if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added.
+ Were these criteria in
+ AA6YQ comments below
Per DXCC rules:
5. Deletion Criteria
a) An Entity may be deleted from the List if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added.
+ Were these criteria in
|
By
Dave AA6YQ
·
#1227
·
|
|
Re: Scarborough Reef
Per DXCC rules:
5. Deletion Criteria
a) An Entity may be deleted from the List if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added.
Bernie McClenny, W3UR
Editor of: The Daily DX
Per DXCC rules:
5. Deletion Criteria
a) An Entity may be deleted from the List if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added.
Bernie McClenny, W3UR
Editor of: The Daily DX
|
By
W3UR Bernie McClenny
·
#1226
·
|
|
Re: Scarborough Reef
+ AA6YQ comments below
+ Actual evidence - pictures of the "operating rocks" at high tide in 1994 and data on changes in sea level since then - would indicate that the "operating rocks" are still
+ AA6YQ comments below
+ Actual evidence - pictures of the "operating rocks" at high tide in 1994 and data on changes in sea level since then - would indicate that the "operating rocks" are still
|
By
Dave AA6YQ
·
#1225
·
|
|
Re: Scarborough Reef
I have to admit that my understanding that BS7 is under water are references to that effect by other hams. But I agree it should be confirmed.
But even if it was not currently under water, is it
I have to admit that my understanding that BS7 is under water are references to that effect by other hams. But I agree it should be confirmed.
But even if it was not currently under water, is it
|
By
tonydicenzo
·
#1224
·
|
|
Re: Scarborough Reef
If memory serves me correctly, China had no official Amateur Radio until the ARRL and others demonstrated Amateur Radio to it's people and the country started licensing them.
I am of the opinion that
If memory serves me correctly, China had no official Amateur Radio until the ARRL and others demonstrated Amateur Radio to it's people and the country started licensing them.
I am of the opinion that
|
By
tonydicenzo
·
#1223
·
|
|
Re: Scarborough Reef
I have 345 countries confirmed, and need three. One is covered with water, and is considered to be lost to sea rise due to global warming. But even if it did arise above sea level, hostilities
I have 345 countries confirmed, and need three. One is covered with water, and is considered to be lost to sea rise due to global warming. But even if it did arise above sea level, hostilities
|
By
tonydicenzo
·
#1222
·
|
|
Re: Scarborough Reef
Regarding all the conjecture concerning Scarborough:
I propose we request that ARRL finance an immediate expedition for “Truthful Verification” of the existence and conditionality of the Reef
Regarding all the conjecture concerning Scarborough:
I propose we request that ARRL finance an immediate expedition for “Truthful Verification” of the existence and conditionality of the Reef
|
By
Hugh Valentine
·
#1221
·
|
|
Re: Scarborough Reef
+ more AA6YQ comments below
+ Referring to the definition of "island" in
<http://www.arrl.org/dxcc-rules>
+ either this requirement
"For the purposes of this award, it must consist of connected land,
+ more AA6YQ comments below
+ Referring to the definition of "island" in
<http://www.arrl.org/dxcc-rules>
+ either this requirement
"For the purposes of this award, it must consist of connected land,
|
By
Dave AA6YQ
·
#1220
·
|
|
Re: Scarborough Reef
Just for fun, I looked it up on Google Earth. Not sure if the attachment will go through, but I am attaching the .kmz file.
If you move your cursor around on the island, most of it is below sea level
Just for fun, I looked it up on Google Earth. Not sure if the attachment will go through, but I am attaching the .kmz file.
If you move your cursor around on the island, most of it is below sea level
|
By
Zack Widup
·
#1219
·
|
|
Re: Scarborough Reef
+ AA6YQ comments below
I am not sure that it can proven that it is above or below water.
+ The traditional approach would be to visit the rocks in a boat at high tide on a calm day, and measure
+ AA6YQ comments below
I am not sure that it can proven that it is above or below water.
+ The traditional approach would be to visit the rocks in a boat at high tide on a calm day, and measure
|
By
Dave AA6YQ
·
#1218
·
|
|
Re: Scarborough Reef
* more AA6YQ comments below
I didn’t state that it was underwater. I only stated that *if* it was underwater it should be removed. This is a conditional statement, not a declaration.
* If a DXCC
* more AA6YQ comments below
I didn’t state that it was underwater. I only stated that *if* it was underwater it should be removed. This is a conditional statement, not a declaration.
* If a DXCC
|
By
Dave AA6YQ
·
#1217
·
|