I had lunch with a rep form G
enn Martin eng. in Missiour and he said that Tic
Ring was almost bankrupt and in recievership. They were thinking about buying
Tic Ring and adding it to their product line. In any event it is interresting
to
note that Tic-Ring did not show up a dayton. Their booth was empty! Rumor had
it that they had no bucks to show...according to the lunchen meeting. Had they
showed up at dayton 94, I would have had a ring rotator coming home with me.
Anyway good luck.
73 Morgan NJ8M
>From Field, Don" <field@btq2ec.igw.bt.co.uk Thu Aug 18 13:12:00 1994
From: Field, Don" <field@btq2ec.igw.bt.co.uk (Field, Don)
Subject: Packet Spotting etc.
Message-ID: <2E535060@smtpgate.agw.bt.co.uk>
I see the discussion about use of packet spotting has reared its head again.
I guess this one is set to run and run. However, there do seem to be some
misunderstandings and hidden assumptions which need to be brought to the
surface if the debate is to be truly helpful.
1. Despite the way it has been positioned by some correspondents, the use of
packet spotting is not a new technology like memory keyers. Its virtue lies
in the way in which it gives you access to a host of additional human
spotters. Ergo, it is multi-op. That doesn't mean it should be ruled out - as
many people here have pointed out, it can add to the fun of a contest,
especially for casual ops. But contest organisers do need seriously to
consider whether it should be a separate category.
2. Which brings me on to point two. Several correspondents on here have
suggested that packet doesn't need a separate category because it doesn't
actually do anything for the score of top operators. I would suggest this
statement reflects an underlying assumption behind much of the discussion
here on the reflector, and an assumption which really needs laying to rest.
That assumption is that there is only one contest - CQWW - and that there is
only one category - multi-band. WRONG. Last year I operated single-op multi-
band assisted in CQWW CW and I have to agree that, if anything, chasing
packet spots slows you down. G4BUO worked many more mults than I did,
operating in the unassisted category. HOWEVER, the same is by no means true
of other contests and other categories. In the recent WAE CW for example,
there were few enough mults for we European stations to work, so every packet
spot was potentially a significant score booster. And, unlike CQWW, activity
was much lower so there was a smaller time penalty in chasing a spot and less
downside to losing a run (because there weren't any runs to speak of ....).
In CQWW CW I frequently work 160m single-band. Again, a few extra mults
gained from packet spotting can make a VERY substantial difference to the
final score and placing.
3. There are also some interesting issues for multi-op stations. It is now
possible in Europe and many parts of the US for multi-ops to run and not to
search at all, simply picking off the multipliers as they appear on the
packet screen. The "easy" countries (which don't get spotted) will come to
you anyway. So multi-op is becoming rather anti-social in that it can be all
take and no give. This.may be within the rules of the contest, but unhealthy.
By the way, one of the reasons we have stopped undertaking multi-single
DXpeditions to GJ and GU in recent years is that there is currently no
Cluster access from the islands. Without Cluster we would face an uphill
battle, rare prefix or not. (I hasten to add, that's by no means the only
reason we haven't been back recently)
Which, of course, leads to the question of where all these developments are
taking us. I recall a QST article from the '50s (no, I'm not that old, but I
was once given some back copies), in which a guy built a computer (valves
back then) to control his station which then worked the stuff to put him on
honour roll, all without his intervention, and printed out the QSLs. All he
had to do was mail them. Within no time he had taken up a new hobby, because
he found his amateur radio boring. Fortunately we are not at that stage yet,
but we do need a healthy debate on new developments as they come along. We
can't preserve the good old days, and can't always compare with old records,
any more than you can compare old and new athletic or tennis records given
that the technical advances in the equipment which is used have enabled new
standards of performance to be reached. We can't live in the past, but an
unquestioning acceptance of everything new is a poor basis on which to run
our lives.
One suggestion I would make to reinvigorate contesting is to reintroduce
something which the operator actually has to copy during the course of a QSO.
The better contests seem to be those which are moving this way - The Internet
Sprints are an example. Perhaps it could be a random number (easy to generate
if you use a computer). Better than a grid square because with grid squares,
name of your favourite aunt, or whatever, they don't change from one contest
to the next so sooner or later someone will encapsulate them all in an
extended MASTER.DAT and we will be back where we started.
By the way, we have plenty of duff spots on the European Cluster system too.
Just a couple of examples from WAE CW: HS2PK (HH2PK of course) and YS1OB (if
only ... but it was YV1OB).
Enough rambling on. Just one final comment relating to an earlier thread. I
don't know how much power W5WMU uses, but what I do know is that of a dozen or
more S9 US stations I heard on 80m when I operated ZS6/G3XTT in ARRL Phone,
WMU was the ONLY one who heard me and who I was able to work.
73 and keep up the lively discussions.
Don G3XTT
field@btq2ec.igw.bt.co.uk
(PS Visited ON4UN a couple of weeks ago - now that's a serious contest
station! Yet another tower and a 4-square for 40 being installed right now for
multi-single efforts in CQWW Phone and CW later this year).
|