[ADXA] CY9C on 80M Std. F/H

Wed Aug 28 11:21:37 EDT 2024

I think you're right, Scott - I see a lot of people having various problems
with it.  Not decoding because signals are too strong, too weak, not using
the latest version, etc.   Some easily explainable, and some not.  I'll
keep my fingers crossed that I show up in their 80M log, and if not, will
try again. I might even find them on the "original digital' mode on 80 one
night!

73,
Dennis/RZ

On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:41 AM <sbranyan at cox.net> wrote:

> I think they just try to give everybody a chance. I bet there’s still a
> lot of hams that don’t use Superfox since it is still a beta version.
>
>
>
> 73,
>
> Scott/W5AAJ
>
>
>
> *From:* adxa-bounces at mailman.qth.net <adxa-bounces at mailman.qth.net> *On
> Behalf Of *Dennis Schaefer
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 28, 2024 9:21 AM
> *Cc:* adxa at mailman.qth.net
> *Subject:* Re: [ADXA] CY9C on 80M Std. F/H
>
>
>
> I worked them on 80 at 0737Z but also wondered if it was legit.  I don't
> remember who or where, but I saw some discussion about why they might use
> regular F/H on the lower bands but if they were Superfox on 160, that goes
> against that.  My 15M CW contact from yesterday afternoon is not showing up
> and people are saying 10M CW yesterday is the same.  I guess we'll see what
> future log updates say.
>
>
>
> I also worked them on 40 FT8 and 30M CW sometime in the early hours.
>
>
>
> 73,
>
> Dennis/RZ
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 8:08 AM <w5znjoel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I worked them on 160 meters last night and they were in SuperFox mode.
> Last night was the first night on 160 so they have not yet uploaded their
> log and stats.
>
>
>
> 160 was horribly noisy last night and I could hear their signal several
> sequences before it would decode, so I’m not so sure SF is good under noisy
> condx. It would have been much better on CW (seriously). They started out
> on 160 CW late yesterday, about 20 mins before our sunset. They were
> horribly weak, obviously, since the sun was still up and they peaked, if
> you can call it that, during gray line, but only to about 80% copy then
> their signal faded into the QRN and horrible noise. They moved to FT8 but
> it was around 0400 before I could actually decode them in SF even though I
> could hear their tones.
>
>
>
> I’m not a big digital guy, so just commenting “for a friend” !!  😊
>
>
>
> ZN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* adxa-bounces at mailman.qth.net <adxa-bounces at mailman.qth.net> *On
> Behalf Of *Steven Rutledge
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 28, 2024 7:50 AM
> *To:* adxa at mailman.qth.net
> *Subject:* Re: [ADXA] CY9C on 80M Std. F/H
>
>
>
> Interesting.  He was not running SF.  And, his stats in club log include
> nothing on 80 or 160.  I was wondering about that too.  But, WFWL.  Band
> was very noisy and the signal was very weak.  I'm not sure how well SF
> works in noisy band conditions.  I just happened to wake up and took a look
> at my screen and saw him spotted so I worked him in about five minutes and
> went back to bed.  He wasn't working very many stations.  We'll see.
>
> Thanks Joel.
>
> Steve
>
> On 8/28/2024 7:43 AM, w5zn at w5zn.org wrote:
>
> It is my understanding that CY9C is running “SUPERFox” so don’t you get
> that little note of “CY9C Verified” that was written into the latest
> version that confirms it is the real station you are working??
>
>
>
> I’m not a big digital guy, but “Asking for a friend” ………………………
>
>
>
> ZN
>
>
>
> *From:* adxa-bounces at mailman.qthnet <adxa-bounces at mailman.qth.net>
> <adxa-bounces at mailman.qth.net> <adxa-bounces at mailman.qth.net> *On Behalf
> Of *Steven Rutledge
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 28, 2024 7:39 AM
> *To:* adxa at mailman.qth.net
> *Subject:* Re: [ADXA] CY9C on 80M Std. F/H
>
>
>
> Well, I may have worked the same "pirate" at 0649.  Why do you think he
> was a pirate?
>
>
>
> Steve, N4JQQ
>
>
>
> On 8/28/2024 2:53 AM, Lanny Aldrich wrote:
>
> I may have worked a PIRATE posing as *CY9C* on 3.567 at 0748Z.  Logged
> him anyway.
>
> 73, Lanny  K1LEC
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> ADXA mailing list
>
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/adxa
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>
> Post: mailto:ADXA at mailman.qth.net <ADXA at mailman.qth.net>
>
>
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> ADXA mailing list
>
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/adxa
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>
> Post: mailto:ADXA at mailman.qth.net <ADXA at mailman.qth.net>
>
>
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ADXA mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/adxa
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ADXA at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ADXA mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/adxa
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ADXA at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/adxa/attachments/20240828/f1ff3206/attachment.html>