CT-User
[Top] [All Lists]

[ct-user] CT log outputs versus ARRL requirements

To: <ct-user@contesting.com>
Subject: [ct-user] CT log outputs versus ARRL requirements
From: Jim Pratt <n6ig@netcom.com> (Jim Pratt)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 10:48:08 -0800 (PST)
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Michael S. Mitchell, W6RW wrote:

> Hi Jim...we used CT version 9.27 for the ARRL CW contest as a
> multi-two entry.

I was told that you needed to use a version above 9.34 for proper 
FT1000MP control.  I used 9.23 for years, it was very stable. The 
addition of the MP precipitated the upgrade.

> The "W6RW.LOG" file produced by CT is in perfect
> compliance with the ARRL requirements....including the state sent,
> a zero or a one for which transmitter made the qso. 

Using 9.37A the state sent is NOT in the .log file.  And now that I 
understand the significance of the "0" and "1" in the right-hand column, 
that does work.  I had tried bothe WRITELOG and WRITEARRL with the same 
results in the .log file.

So it appears that I am semi-compliant as long as Newington accepts the 
following item on the summary sheet:

"All transmitted state reports were California and a "0" in the righthand 
column indicated the QSO was made on station one and a "1" in the 
righthand column indicated station two."

I say semi-compliant since the log format says all the station 1/station 
2 info and the transmitted data must appear in the .log file.  To me that 
implies not needing to look at the .sum file or needing a decoder ring!

Getting closer!

73, Jim  N6IG

--
Submissions:              ct-user@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  ct-user-REQUEST@contesting.com
WWW:                      http://www.contesting.com/ct/
Questions:                owner-ct-user@contesting.com


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>