Review
>From Field, Don" <field@btq2ec.igw.bt.co.uk Fri Mar 18 17:21:00 1994
From: Field, Don" <field@btq2ec.igw.bt.co.uk (Field, Don)
Subject: CQ WPX Rules
Message-ID: <2D89E2F4@smtpgate.agw.bt.co.uk>
For those of you who are postally challenged - my copy of NCJ arrived safely
in the UK on the 16th!
I guess my main reason for sending this message is to let folks know there is
now another G on the Reflector. However, I did agree strongly with Trey's
editorial. My argument doesn't hinge on propagation at one QTH rather than
another. It has much more to do with an invidious trend in contest rules in
which all contest rules are gradually drifting together. Seems to me we are
in grave danger of ending up with contests every weekend which are everyone
work everyone for 48 hours. It is only the sponsors who will differ.
CQWW and the ARRL contests are great - a test of stamina, operating skill and
much else. But other contests offer different challenges. A 30 hour effort
requires strategy about which band to be on and when. Admittedly adding 6
hours doesn't make a big difference, but it fits the trend I described above,
and also makes a nonesense of previous records.Surely it's the old story - if
it ain't broke, don't fix it. And there really is no need to try to attract
contest expeditions for WPX - for example, there are probably more VP2's than
NK8's on the band in this event (my US call is NK1G - in '92 I was on briefly
from Michigan and they don't come much rarer than NK8!).
73 Don, G3XTT
(thanks to those of you who worked me as ZS6/G3XTT in ARRL Phone and who
worked G3WGV, GJ3YHU and I as GJ3ULT in ARRL CW)
>From Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> Fri Mar 18 14:24:25 1994
From: Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> (Trey Garlough)
Subject: Review
Message-ID: <764000665.802354.GARLOUGH@TGV.COM>
> To: cq-contest@tgv.com
>
> Review
Since this has happened three days in a row, I feel a need to comment.
This message that says "Review" was sent to cq-contest@tgv.com, and hence
was retransmitted to the 500+ subscribers of the list. I'm guessing
the person who posted the message intended to send this message to
cq-contest-REQUEST@tgv.com, which is subscription handling robot. Had
this been done, only the robot would have seen the message and the
request would have been honored.
Please be cognizant of the difference in the two addresses.
--Trey, WN4KKN/6
>From georgens@emc.com (Tom Georgens) Fri Mar 18 14:09:21 1994
From: georgens@emc.com (Tom Georgens) (Tom Georgens)
Subject: WPX
Message-ID: <9403181409.AA17134@emcc>
Having operated the past few CQ WPX CW contests (as NR1E), my
preference is clearly in favor of the 36 hour format. When the
length was 30 hours, I found the mandatory off-time excessive and
intensely frustrating. Like most other people, dedicating a weekend to
contesting requires considerable coordination with work, wife, kids,
etc., and it always seemed senseless to take required off-time when
there was still stuff to work and I was not tired. I contest because
it is enjoyable and rules that force me to turn off the radio and kill
time when I could be operating only serve to reduce rather than
enhance my enthusiasm.
I am not against the concept of mandatory off time. We already have
full 48 hour contests and I support other formats that allow for
substantial participation and competition. However, 18 out of 48 hours
was just too much. I found that Sunday was very frustrating and
consisted primarily of killing time, sporadic operating, and counting
the minutes until the contest was over. I don't think that this was
the intention of the contest organizers.
In am partially sympathetic to the argument that we already
have the ARRL DX and CQWW contests which essentially measure the
East Coast's ability to run Europe, and why have another that appears
to reward the same abilities. However, I don't think that forcing
stations off the air is the answer, but rather we should be looking
for ways to foster activity and competition. We have all seen the
CW SS come back from the dead in recent years so it appears possible
that sponsors can do things to stimulate activity. In addition, even
a cold hearted, East Coast contester like myself would consider minor
rule changes in this contest to facilitate broader competition.
Clearly this is one person's perspective but I still think that we
should be looking for ways to enhance the overall appeal of the WPX
contest without seriously diluting the experience for those who enjoy the
current format.
BTW - I have not recieved my NCJ either. Must be the weather.
73,
Tom W2SC
w2sc@emc.com or
georgens@emc.com
>From tim.ellam@logical.cuc.ab.ca (Tim Ellam) Fri Mar 18 12:37:00 1994
From: tim.ellam@logical.cuc.ab.ca (Tim Ellam) (Tim Ellam)
Subject: Pirate Software
Message-ID: <2337.1000.uupcb@logical.cuc.ab.ca>
K1AR's recent column in CQ gives much food for thought, especially his
comment with contesters using pirate software to submit logs. This is a
pet peeve of mine and it always bothers me when amateurs spend megabucks
on equipment but are too cheap to buy their own software! Where I live
there are more "borrowed" copies of CT in use than you can shake a stick
at.
The use of pirated software is not only illegal but it is tantamont to
to cheating.
Would it not be a simple matter for the programmers to develop a routine
in the software to ensure the purchaser must register the program before
use? Could the program only print logs etc for the registered user?
Should the programmers supply ARRL, CQ etc with a list of registered
users ie: so if you submit a log in electronic form and your name is not
I know there are flaws in this proposal but how else do you prevent
the use of pirate software
What do K1EA, K8CC, N6TR etc think about this? Is it worth pursuing?
Should ARRL spotcheck logs to see if the submitter is a registered user?
Would this deter people from even submitting logs?
Just a thought!
Tim VE6SH
Canadian CAC Rep
tim.ellam@logical.cuc.ab.ca
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Logical Solutions Computer Systems Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada |
| Internet: logical.cuc.ab.ca (403)-299-9900 24 Lines |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>From blunt@arrl.org (Billy Lunt KR1R) Wed Mar 16 21:52:12 1994
From: blunt@arrl.org (Billy Lunt KR1R) (Billy Lunt KR1R)
Subject: Multi Single
Message-ID: <7907@bl>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: "Walton L. Stinson" <wstinson@teal>
>To: Charlie Ocker <Ocker@kd5pj.dseg.ti.com>
>Cc: CQ-Contest-Relay@TGV.COM
>Subject: Re: M/S 10:00 RULE
>On Fri, 25 Feb 1994, Charlie Ocker wrote:
>> A multi-single does NOT have to be "a bunch of guys with one rig" setup.
>> Consider the following scenario:
>>
>> 2 rigs, 2 ops. Station 1 is running. Station 2 is scanning another
>> band, not only for mults, but for new stations. Station 2 writes down
>> the info or puts it into the rigs memories. At some point in time, the
>> 2 stations "swap" or, as I like to call it, "bounce". Station 2 is now
>> the run station, and Station 1 begins to scoure the band he was on, or a
>> new band. Station 2 quickly works all the stations it had queued up
>> from it's earlier stint of listening. When all these stations are
>> worked, it finds a spot to run.>
>> 73,
>> Charlie KD5PJ ocker@kd5pj.dseg.ti.com
>I refer you to the arrl dx contest rules on page 125 of the dec 1993
>qst, paragraph C-1: "once a station has begun operation on a given
>band, it must remain on that band for at least 10 minutes; LISTENING
>TIME COUNTS AS OPERATING TIME." I have interpreted this to mean that
>the only band a second rcvr can listen on is the band that is currently
>logged. Thus, the practice that Charlie is describing is prohibited.
>I will refer this question to the Contest Branch to determine how they
>are currently interpreting this rule.
>73, walt, W0CP, rocky mtn div CAC rep
Walt said:
>"I refer you to the arrl dx contest rules on page 125 of the dec 1993
>qst, paragraph C-1: "once a station has begun operation on a given
>band, it must remain on that band for at least 10 minutes; LISTENING
>TIME COUNTS AS OPERATING TIME."
This means that even though you find some juicy multipliers on another
band, you can not change bands until you have been on your original band
for at least 10 minutes. This does not prohibit a Multi-Single station
from using a second (or even a third) receiver. A Multi-Single station
can have only one transmitted signal on the air at any given time, and
once they have made a band change, they must stay on that band for at least
ten minutes.
73,
Billy
+------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Billy Lunt, KR1R | Voice: 203-666-1541 |
| Contest Manager | FAX: 203-665-7531 |
| American Radio Relay League | ARRL BBS: 203-666-0578 |
| 225 Main Street | BBS Uploads: 203-665-0090 |
| Newington, CT 06111 | Internet: blunt@arrl.org |
+------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Send ARRL Contest Entries via: contest@arrl.org |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
>From Jay Townsend" <jayt@comtch.iea.com Fri Mar 18 17:04:16 1994
From: Jay Townsend" <jayt@comtch.iea.com (Jay Townsend)
Subject: ARRL SSB M/S
Message-ID: <m0phhy4-0001EzC@comtch.iea.com>
ARRL INTERNATIONAL DX CONTEST 1994
Call: K7MM Country: United States (090)
Mode: SSB Category: Multi Single
BAND QSO QSO PTS PTS/Q COUNTRIES
160 5 15 3.0 5
80 51 153 3.0 25
40 65 195 3.0 31
20 474 1416 3.0 89
15 671 2004 3.0 98
10 85 252 3.0 32
--------------------------------------
Totals 1351 4035 3.0 280 = 1,129,800
Operators: K7MM, WB7AVD, WS7I
>From Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> Fri Mar 18 17:13:21 1994
From: Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> (Trey Garlough)
Subject: Pirate Software
Message-ID: <764010801.75354.GARLOUGH@TGV.COM>
> What do K1EA, K8CC, N6TR etc think about this? Is it worth pursuing?
> Should ARRL spotcheck logs to see if the submitter is a registered user?
> Would this deter people from even submitting logs?
We hashed this out a few months ago here on the net, so I will offer the
following three comments in summary:
1) It's not the business of ARRL or CQ to enfore this
2) You can't register a logging program to a single callsign; I have been
W6QHS, HD9N, HC8N, WN4KKN/HC5, TI1C, 6D2X, WN4KKN/6, KI3V/7 in the
past 18 months. I have to buy a copy each time I operate?
3) You can send email to FileServ@TGV.COM that says
SENDME CQ-CONTEST-ARCHIVE.yyyy-mm
to get copies of all the old messages posted to this list
--Trey, WN4KKN/6
>From Jim Hollenback <jholly@hposl42.cup.hp.com> Fri Mar 18 18:03:34 1994
From: Jim Hollenback <jholly@hposl42.cup.hp.com> (Jim Hollenback)
Subject: Pirate Software
Message-ID: <9403181803.AA18358@hposl42.cup.hp.com>
>
>
> Would it not be a simple matter for the programmers to develop a routine
> in the software to ensure the purchaser must register the program before
> use? Could the program only print logs etc for the registered user?
How is the program going to tell if it is executing on a computer of
a registered user? Unless the author goes the dongle route, you have
no means of insuring the execution on the registered processor.
Print the registered users name and call? Thats what they make editors
for.
> Should the programmers supply ARRL, CQ etc with a list of registered
> users ie: so if you submit a log in electronic form and your name is not
> I know there are flaws in this proposal but how else do you prevent
> the use of pirate software
The contest sonsors should not be responsible for enforcing copyright
laws.
But how can a sponsor tell if a log was generated with a pirated copy
of <favorite log program>? I could write a program that outputs my
log in the same format. In the case of a ARRL submission, they all look
the same!
>
> What do K1EA, K8CC, N6TR etc think about this? Is it worth pursuing?
> Should ARRL spotcheck logs to see if the submitter is a registered user?
> Would this deter people from even submitting logs?
>
> Just a thought!
> Tim VE6SH
> Canadian CAC Rep
> tim.ellam@logical.cuc.ab.ca
>
Good point, but peer pressure probably is about the only way.
Jim
>From j.p. kleinhaus" <kleinhaj@mary.iia.org Fri Mar 18 18:20:26 1994
From: j.p. kleinhaus" <kleinhaj@mary.iia.org (j.p. kleinhaus)
Subject: I'm baaaaaack!
Message-ID: <199403181820.AA01512@mary.iia.org>
Hi Trey and the rest of the gang,
I have moved my Internet mailboc once again in search of the "better
deal".
My short foray with AT&T Mail was great until they decided to
start charging $0.15 for the first 1,000 characters etc. for mail
being *received* from the Internet!
My new address is: kleinhaj@mary.iia.org
For those of you who care, please make a note of it.
73 de J.P. Kleinhaus AA2DU
ARRL Hudson Division CAC Rep.
|