CQ-Contest archive search

1. [CQ-Contest] Survey results (score: 1)

Author: W0uo@cs.com (W0uo@cs.com)

Date: Fri Jan 11 00:32:09 2002

The accuracy of a survey depends on four things. First, the size of the sample (not the proportion of the population sampled). Second, the randomness of the sample. Third, the response rate (to be su

/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-01/msg00184.html (6,748 bytes)

2. [CQ-Contest] Meet with the BoD (score: 1)

Author: w0uo@cs.com (w0uo@cs.com)

Date: Tue Jan 29 12:53:52 2002

Ward, Excellent observation. I believe, before we get carried away, that we need to do some careful analysis and planning. I have no problem with contesters promoting contesting, in fact I do that at

/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-01/msg00645.html (9,623 bytes)

3. [CQ-Contest] Polling (score: 1)

Author: W0uo@cs.com (W0uo@cs.com)

Date: Wed Feb 13 21:25:19 2002

Tom, Failure to stratify the sample probably invalidates the results. Check political polling. Not only random in total, but stratified to include each little area, such as a precinct. Jim -- CQ-Cont

/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-02/msg00188.html (7,608 bytes)

4. [CQ-Contest] Packet usage (score: 1)

Author: w0uo@cs.com (w0uo@cs.com)

Date: Thu Feb 21 12:31:43 2002

All It has long been my opinion that a good single op unassisted effort will always prevail over an assisted effort THAT OVER EMPHASIZES USE OF PACKET. By that I mean that, for several reasons, not a

/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-02/msg00335.html (8,539 bytes)

5. [CQ-Contest] Packet vs. No Packet Contesting (score: 1)

Author: W0uo@cs.com (W0uo@cs.com)

Date: Sun Feb 24 06:38:37 2002

Guy, Well said!! If there's an advantage it is very small. Its always been interesting to me that a single op with a multiplier orientation will usually be beat by a single op with a rate orientation

/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-02/msg00381.html (7,212 bytes)

6. [CQ-Contest] OO reports (score: 1)

Author: W0uo@cs.com (W0uo@cs.com)

Date: Wed Mar 13 10:06:14 2002

I agree completely with Tom. I saw a couple of the notices last night. In both cases, the party receiving the notice was operating at or above 14348.0. By definition, given the bandwidth of SSB filte

/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-03/msg00234.html (7,552 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] ham radio is dead? (score: 1)

Author: W0uo@cs.com

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:19:41 -0500

Mike makes an interesting point. For a long time I've thought that there must be a purpose in order for us to take the time to communicate. Shooting the bull, exchanging reports, rigs, weather, etc c

/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-02/msg00218.html (10,104 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] ham radio is dead? (score: 1)

Author: W0uo@cs.com

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:07:45 EST

Paul, Heaven forbid that you think I said an operator should not improve himself, but otherwise your response makes my point exactly, i.e., make the contact, break the pileup, beat someone else to th

/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-02/msg00221.html (7,937 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] Time zone multiplier for ARRL DX Contests (score: 1)

Author: W0uo@cs.com

Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:39:03 -0500

Pete and Steve, As I have said on this reflector before, top ten lists, etc. are not specified in any contest rules. Competition is defined as local, with awards given, typically, by zone, state of A

/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00066.html (11,865 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] Real emergencies (score: 1)

Author: W0uo@cs.com

Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:50:25 -0500

Bryan Jim W0UO/5 _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00466.html (10,357 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] Barking up the wrong ARRL DX tree (score: 1)

Author: W0uo@cs.com

Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 12:16:45 -0400

Scott, thanks for at least admitting that geography creates an advantage. Also, I am thankful that you have made a distinction between rules and score reporting. My reading of most contest rules does

/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-04/msg00074.html (12,695 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] Barking Up the Wrong ARRL DX Tree (score: 1)

Author: W0uo@cs.com

Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 10:19:46 -0400

How interesting: KQ2M, a guy who enjoys almost all the advantages possible for an ARRL DX Test is complaining because someone else has one he doesn't. East coasters, in general, deflect mention of th

/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-04/msg00112.html (10,273 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] Let's change the ARRLDX rules (score: 1)

Author: W0uo@cs.com

Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:15:45 -0400

Bob's suggestion below is excellent and, in my opinion, is exactly what the ARRL rules call for. Amazing!! His suggestion points out that the real problem is reporting the results in ways not recogni

/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-04/msg00137.html (12,547 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] How about ditching ARRL DX top 10 completely? (score: 1)

Author: W0uo@cs.com

Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:11:06 -0400

Ed, Read the rules. Jim W0UO/5 _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-04/msg00193.html (11,075 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] Handicapping (score: 1)

Author: W0uo@cs.com

Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:49:39 -0400

Thanks Rick for identifying the two issues. Jim W0UO/5 _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/c

/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-04/msg00199.html (7,151 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] The New ARRL DX Contest (score: 1)

Author: W0uo@cs.com

Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:09:22 -0400

As long as we are human, we will compete. The claim by any operator/station that he has won the contest. implying that that was done solely on the basis the he operated the best station and/or was th

/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-04/msg00200.html (11,781 bytes)

17. Re: [CQ-Contest] Chiming in -- SO2R (score: 1)

Author: W0uo@cs.com

Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:29:08 -0500

Steve makes excellent points. The amateur service is a service of "self training", and contesting is an ideal means to that end. It has always been interesting to me that the rules for most contests

/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-12/msg00044.html (11,095 bytes)

18. Re: [CQ-Contest] Chiming in -- SO2R (score: 1)

Author: W0uo@cs.com

Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 10:39:24 -0500

Eric, I assert two things. First, top ten lists, etc are not provided for in the rules. That much is fact. Provision for these kinds of listings exist only in the editorial policy of the sponsoring o

/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-12/msg00080.html (11,059 bytes)

19. Re: [CQ-Contest] Chiming in -- SO2R (score: 1)

Author: W0uo@cs.com

Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 14:01:47 -0500

Again, Steve is right on, I've contested from Minnesota, Colorado, and Texas. Colorado and Texas have much more in common than either has with Minnesota. When you see the Aurora past the Zenith, you

/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-12/msg00106.html (9,589 bytes)

20. Re: [CQ-Contest] RE: QRPers calling off freq (score: 1)

Author: W0uo@cs.com

Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:46:04 -0500

The remarks by K0SR and KG5U are accurate and we all need to pay attention. I did some QRP contesting a few years ago and learned that sometimes XIT + .1 or -.1 made the difference between making a Q

/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-12/msg00302.html (8,642 bytes)