Since some of you provided me with advise, I figured you might wonder how I
did in the phone SS -- BETTER THAN EVER!
AA4LR GA, low power
827 Qs
77 Sections
127,358 points.
22.3 hours of operation.
Breakdown:
80: 156
40: 105
20: 387
15: 142
10: 37
Station: (Very modest)
Kenwood TS-430S barefoot. (90W PEP)
80: 125' doublet, 45' up.
40: dipole, 20' up.
20, 15 and 10: Cushcraft A3 at 35'
Comments:
While I didn't break the 1000 Q barrier (which three of us did this year
during FD), this score is the best ever from AA4LR. Previous best was 106K in
1990. I doubt I'll be in the top ten, but maybe I'll take the GA section.
I wasn't so worried about the sweep. I've gotten a sweep the last 4 times I've
entered phone SS. (88, 89, 90, 92) What I did do was go through my 90 and 93
logs and figure out which sections where the hardest. I didn't worry about any
mults but the hardest 5 (NWT, VI, PR, DE and WV) during the first 12 hours.
Average rate was 37.1, and much of that was S & Ping. Biggest tip this year
was using two VFOs to tune in a second station while trying to bust the first.
After acquiring two stations to call, I flipped back and forth until I worked
one of them or moved on. This kept the rate up while I was trying to bust
through early on. I think I'm gonna wear out the VFO knob on my TS-430. I'll
have to find a radio with pushbutton VFO flip/flip.
Some sporatic E really helped out. At 0300Z, I was up on 15m calling CQ and
managed a 51 Q hour. At 0400Z, I went to 20m and managed a 69 Q hour, the best
of the contest. Calling CQ on 15 and 20 while the big guns were down on 40 and
80 was real helpful. Second biggest tip was to call CQ on any clear frequency.
Best moments were have W3TCI in DE call me at 0330Z on 15m; trying to work
KP4CZ, who had a most unruly pileup going; and working VY1QST on the first call
Sunday afternoon in a pileup (the only YUK/NWT I heard all weekend), for the
sweep.
Weirdest moment was trying to work N6VI/KH6 who was going around by call
areas. I couldn't believe he was doing that. While I was calling, I tuned
around with the second VFO and snagged NH6JC who was just a few kHz up. Never
did work N6VI/KH6.
Many thanks to Randy K5ZD, Dave WX3N, Ralph K9ZO, and Dave KT5V for their
advise. It really helped. I think Randy summed it up best: "Remember, be
aggressive, tune fast, and CQ anytime you find a halfway clear frequency."
That's exactly what I did.
73, Bill AA4LR
>From Jim Hollenback <jholly@hposl42.cup.hp.com> Wed Nov 24 22:11:29 1993
From: Jim Hollenback <jholly@hposl42.cup.hp.com> (Jim Hollenback)
Subject: Todays ethics question (again)
Message-ID: <9311242211.AA10503@hposl42.cup.hp.com>
>
> >From the replys I got appearently I didn't state this very well. The B
> power station was feeding the lower power station QSOs. One after another
> for at least the twenty minutes I tuned around. The lower power station
> will be very competitive in his class. 73, Jay K0GU
>
Of course, the question begging, is why in the world would a competitive
high power station waste his time feeding the small station q's?
73, Jim, WA6SDM
>From draperbl <draperbl@smtplink.mdl.sandia.gov> Wed Nov 24 21:39:56 1993
From: draperbl <draperbl@smtplink.mdl.sandia.gov> (draperbl)
Subject: K9RS phone SS score
Message-ID: <9311241539.A06343@smtplink.mdl.sandia.gov.>
K9RS/5 Phone SS, SINGLE-OP (AA5B, op) New Mexico
80 281
40 544
20 948
15 202
10 105
_____
2080 X 77 ----> 320k
Station: KT34XA @ 65', KT34 @ 50', CC 40-2 @ 75', 80 inv V @ 60'
TS850 x 2 (multi-band dipole on 2nd radio)
Dentron DTR2000 amp
Felt great to do single-op again. Some observations . . .
1. From this neck of the woods, this was a completely different
contest than in past years. Gone are the days of pinning my top-
ten hopes on cruising along all day on 10 meters. This year it
seemed impossible to keep anything going on 15 meters (and 10 was
useless), so I had to keep running back to 20. Guess I'm going
to have to learn to like that band for the next several years.
But looking at KI3V/7's breakdown, it seems that it must've been
almost business as usual in Nevada . . . over 1100 Qs on 10 and
15. If I didn't have decent propagation on those bands and the
guys in the northwest also were complaining, then Nevada must be
a magic spot this year. California, too? I'd be interested in
hearing from KM9P, K6LL, WB5VZL, K0KR, and KY7M about their
breakdowns.
2. Right before the contest started, there were two competing
little voices in my head. One, the voice of the ghost of
Sweepstakes past, said "start on the highest band that seems open
(15)." The other kept whispering "try to remember how bad 15 was
for the CW weekend . . . start on 20!" Unfortunately, I listened
to the wrong voice, started on 15, and had to move to 20 after a
very short while. Ever try to find a good slot on that band only
30 minutes into the contest? I spent the next several hours on
14.151, hating every minute of it. My rate for the first hour
was my worst ever -- even below the rates for the years when I
ran low power.
3. If the numbers hold up, this will be the 3rd year in a row
that the median top-ten high-power phone score has decreased.
Conversely, the median top-ten CW score has gone up for 4 years
in a row. Interesting. I haven't had a chance to look at the
participation numbers (how 'bout it, Billy?). The phone boys
are, no doubt, suffering from fewer novice/tech Qs on 10 meters.
But I bet the CW crew is doing a much better job of compensating
for worse conditions through good use of the second radio. How
many SS phone operators are using the second radio?
See you from AA6TT's for WW CW.
Adios,
Bruce AA5B
draperbl@mdlchtm.eece.unm.edu
>From Tim Coad" <tim_coad@smtp.esl.com Wed Nov 24 23:30:19 1993
From: Tim Coad" <tim_coad@smtp.esl.com (Tim Coad)
Subject: WC6H Breakdowns
Message-ID: <9311242331.AA07585@esl.com>
Subject: Time:3:23 PM
Rich just phoned me with these numbers form SJV:
10 - 248
15 - 839
20 - 213
40 - 585
80 - 157
2042 x (sweep)
A quite different breakdown from K9RS, yet very close scores.
He said 20 was such a mess he pretty much stayed away from it.
Also said 220 of his 248 Q's on 10 came in one 2 hr period.
Tim - NU6S
>From dcurtis@mipos2.intel.com (Dave Curtis) Thu Nov 25 01:59:29 1993
From: dcurtis@mipos2.intel.com (Dave Curtis) (Dave Curtis)
Subject: Todays ethics question
Message-ID: <9311250159.AA03562@climax.intel.com>
>Well here is todays question. A big station running B power in the SS
>calls CQ on 75m. He get a call and works the calling station. Then he
>tells the station that called to stand by for another station. The calling
>station is then worked by big gun's friend who is considerably weaker
>and in a lower power class. Is this OK????
I guess the lawyer's art lies in being able to write a rule that says
"no pimping" without sounding crude.
73, dave ng0x
>From dcurtis@mipos2.intel.com (Dave Curtis) Thu Nov 25 02:06:44 1993
From: dcurtis@mipos2.intel.com (Dave Curtis) (Dave Curtis)
Subject: Software Piracy
Message-ID: <9311250206.AA03579@climax.intel.com>
AI6E says:
> K5TM "thm@rmc.liant.com" wrote:
>>I am unable to understand how software should be considered as
>>somehow different from any other retail (i.e. end user) transaction.
>
>Because there is no transfer of tangeable property between the software
>seller and the pirate, this is not a good analogy...
the property in question is intellectual property, and it clearly has
been diluted. no one ever "buys" software. you buy media, and you
*license* the software. did your copy of CT come with a license
to use, or a license to redistribute? the former, i think.
73, dave ng0x
>From bhorn@netcom.com (Bruce Horn) Thu Nov 25 02:15:04 1993
From: bhorn@netcom.com (Bruce Horn) (Bruce Horn)
Subject: Yesterday's Ethics
Message-ID: <199311250215.SAA08514@mail.netcom.com>
Regarding AB6FO's question concerning soliciting info from other
contestants as to the whereabouts of needed multipliers:
I thought it might be interesting to look at this from a practical
point of view. The issue for most is whether a competitor has an
unfair advantage over us that will result in a higher score. Generally,
advantages are either classified as 1) against the rules of the
contest, or 2) a separate classification of operation.
For purposes of discussion, suppose you work 75 sections and 1000 Qs
without asking anyone for anything. For the same score you can either
work an additional 2 sections, or another 29 Qs. (For 1500 Qs, another
2 sections would be equivalent to another 42 Qs.)
Now we have to decide whether the advantage of obtaining the additional
2 sections by soliciting on-air info is a significant advantage. It's
interesting to note that those of us using a single rig are now regularly
competing with those using 2 rigs. From my conversations with such operators
the 2nd rig provides them with an additional 75 to 100 Qs over the course
of the contest. Since neither method of enhancing one's score is prohibited
by the contest rules, is the method providing a 29-50 Q advantage unethical,
while the method providing a 75-100 Q advantage is ethical ?
It seems that contesting methods continually evolve. I personally am more
concerned with improving my score, as compared with previous years. (Although
I wouldn't mind "winning" one.) If someone uses two radio to "beat" me,
then I can easily rationalize the difference between our scores.
We all seem to grind our teeth a lot over these issues. Non-hams acquaitances
are always mystified when told that all you can win is a plaque or certificate
when they ask what the stakes are.
73 de Bruce, WA7BNM
>From oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) Wed Nov 24 21:29:08 1993
From: oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) (Derek Wills)
Subject: Yesterday's Ethics
Message-ID: <9311250329.AA10399@astro.as.utexas.edu>
>Non-hams acquaitances are always mystified when told that
>all you can win is a plaque or certificate when they ask
>what the stakes are.
>73 de Bruce, WA7BNM
And even if you solicit information to get a Clean Sweep and the
coffee mug, you still have to pay for the mug...
Still, many ethical contesters spend a lot of time and money on
improving their station, or traveling to another continent, and it
seems awfully low to do them out of a rightful win, by using some
of the questionable tactics that have been mentioned here.
If the stakes were higher - e.g. monetary prizes - perhaps we would
have contest monitors going around randomly measuring stations' ERP,
correlating "unassisted" activity with packet spots, collecting logs
1 minute after the contest to avoid later "tidying up" and so on.
Have fun in CQWW - and be good,
Derek AA5BT
|