SCORE 27-Mar-1994 S56A
WPX SSB SINGLE OP. ASSISTED.
Band QSOs Pnts Mult
-----------------------
160M 45 88 21
80M 130 280 62
40M 190 632 117
20M 334 616 152
15M 265 670 158
10M 42 118 28
-----------------------
All 1007 2404 538
TOTAL : 1.293.352 Points
Marijan Miletic', S56A, N1YU.
Trebinjska 8, 61113 Ljubljana
Slovenia, Europe
Member of:
Radioclub "Ljubljana"
Slovenia Contest Club
Rig : IC-735 + SB-221
Ant : TH6DXX + 402BA + 78m Windom
Comment:
Contest clashed with my birthday so only 32 hours active!
Condx were messy with plenty of splaters (but better than expected).
10m was nicely opened for SA & AF but no JA & USA = no pile-ups!
Other Slovenian stations claimed following results:
S59A (Drago, S59UN, ex YU3ZV) 2800Q, 750P, 6.6M AB
S59L (Leon, S59DX, ex YU3GB) 1800Q, 600P, 2.5M 21
S50A (Tine, S52AA, ex YU3EY) 2600Q, 800P, 4.1M 14
S53EA (Tine, ex YZ3EA, YT3L ) 1500Q, 600P, 2.2M 14
S50E (S59AB) 1800Q, 550P, 2.5M 7
73 de Mario, S56A, N1YU
>From Silvergran Jonathan, SEME" <josi@telub.se Wed Mar 30 22:20:00 1994
From: Silvergran Jonathan, SEME" <josi@telub.se (Silvergran Jonathan, SEME)
Subject: Single/Multi or...
Message-ID: <2D99FBB5@noak.vxo.telub.se>
perhaps it would be better to call it S&M...... (grin)
Well, seriously I think that adding a S/M category would be
more good than bad. Sure, I can imagine that some "upcoming"
guys can be turned off by a category aimed at the more or less
well-equipped, but on the other hand there is the M/M category.
Does that also turn off the middle-guns? Guess not...
As far as I can imagine, there would still be the regular
categories, right? I think that allowing S/M adds a new
challenge, but I can't really see the great disadvantages
that some people obiously can.
Go for it, and see what happens. Nothing has to be 4 ever.
73
Jon, SM3OJR
josi@telub.se
PS. If there was an S/M, I for one would give it a shot! DS.
>From blunt@arrl.org (Billy Lunt KR1R) Wed Mar 30 12:10:02 1994
From: blunt@arrl.org (Billy Lunt KR1R) (Billy Lunt KR1R)
Subject: Field Day
Message-ID: <8467@bl>
Bob K2PH asked:
>Have any of you used the WARC bands on Field Day? What's
>the consensus -- is it worthwhile to try them, or a waste
>of time?
You may NOT use the WARC bands in this year's Field Day.
This is a change in the rules starting with for the '94 Field Day.
The new rule reads:
2) Object: To work as many stations as possible on any or
all amateur bands (except 10, 18 AND 24-MHz bands) and, in doing
so, to learn to operate in abnormal situations under less-than-
optimum conditions. A premium is placed on skills and equipment
developed to meet the challenge of emergency preparedness and to
acquaint the public with the capabilities of Amateur Radio.
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 Joel Magid <76450.2313@CompuServe.COM> Wed Mar 30 13:13:00 1994
From: Joel Magid <76450.2313@CompuServe.COM> (Joel Magid)
Subject: Operating from another station and QTH
Message-ID: <940330131300_76450.2313_CHL59-1@CompuServe.COM>
I am not a big contester but have run across a question that
this group should be able to help me answer.
When I operate from my own QTH .... I use my own call
(no big deal .... this is standard process)
When I operate from another station and QTH what callsign
should I use .... mine or the callsign of the station operator
at the new QTH.
In general the question seems to be a simple one .... the answer
should be " the callsign of the station which ID's the location
where
I am operating from"
Now the specific question:
I am licensed as WU1F ...... if I operate from the QTH of W1xxx
what callsign do I sign.
Thanks for the help ..... all opinions are welcome
>From modular!eric@cs.arizona.edu (Eric Gustafson) Wed Mar 30 15:27:37 1994
From: modular!eric@cs.arizona.edu (Eric Gustafson) (Eric Gustafson)
Subject: single/multi
Message-ID: <9403301527.AA00938@modular>
I'd like to join the amen chorus for Dave, K6LL's post. And to add
(speaking as a most of the time non-contester) that I don't think it is
particularly useful to be working to find ways to make contests consume
even MORE bandwidth.
73, Eric
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Gustafson N7CL | The mountains are high and the Emperor
6730 S. Old Spanish Trail | is far away.
Tucson, AZ 85747 |
INTERNET: modular!eric@cs.arizona.edu | You can't work 'em
CI$: 71750,2133 | if you can't hear 'em.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From modular!eric@cs.arizona.edu (Eric Gustafson) Wed Mar 30 15:35:15 1994
From: modular!eric@cs.arizona.edu (Eric Gustafson) (Eric Gustafson)
Subject: Heil Pro-Set
Message-ID: <9403301535.AA00992@modular>
Sandy,
If you really want to know how they are at customer support, call 'em and
tell them that you are having trouble driving your IC781 mic audio with
your heil product. Then post the message that produces on your answering
machine.
73, Eric
>From Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> Wed Mar 30 15:58:46 1994
From: Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> (Trey Garlough)
Subject: Operating from another station and QTH
Message-ID: <765043126.693375.GARLOUGH@TGV.COM>
> I am licensed as WU1F ...... if I operate from the QTH of W1xxx
> what callsign do I sign.
Whichever one you and W1xxx agree on.
--Trey
>From Smith, Pete" <PSmith@codei.hq.nasa.gov Wed Mar 30 19:24:00 1994
From: Smith, Pete" <PSmith@codei.hq.nasa.gov (Smith, Pete)
Subject: single/multi
Message-ID: <2D99D2AD@ms.hq.nasa.gov>
K6LL wrote:
>Why don't we all save ourselves a lot of trouble and outlaw single/multi,
or
>at least the practice of calling CQ on one frequency while involved in a
QSO
>on another frequency? I think single/multi stacks up as follows:
>On the downside
> * Discouragement to middle-level contestors who sometimes compete
quite
>successfully with relatively simple setups, but really don't take it
>seriously enough to go to the extremes of single/multi.
I may not be representative, since I'm a VERY little pistol, without even a
rotatable antenna, but ...
I used to be competitive in low-power SS. However, anytime a well-equipped
station chooses to operate in my category I will get killed. If that
well-equipped station goes S/M, that may add insult to injury, but it is
already academic. So my satisfaction at the moment comes primarily from
competing with myself, trying to do better every year. When and if I get a
better station, you can bet that I will borrow a second rig and give S/M a
try, just out of curiosity. So let's not ban S/M, or segregate it -- you
can't regulate everything ...
73, Pete N4ZR
>From clay rudolf <rtclay@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> Wed Mar 30 16:13:19 1994
From: clay rudolf <rtclay@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> (clay rudolf)
Subject: single/multi
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.9403301052.A9505-b100000@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>
> Why don't we all save ourselves a lot of trouble and outlaw single/multi, or
> at least the practice of calling CQ on one frequency while involved in a QSO
> on another frequency? I think single/multi stacks up as follows:
>
> On the downside:
.
.
.
>
> * Additional spectrum utilization, since while one frequency is
> occupied with a QSO, another is occupied with an automated CQ.
I really agree with Dave on this point, and would like to add this
comment: (I think it applies mostly to SS, where qso's are not duped on
each band, rates get rather slow on Sunday, and there are a good number of
"casual" participants who still try to make 100-200 qso's).
Most contesters will agree that the more activity there is in a contest,
the more fun it will be for all participants. 200 different stations
calling cq on 2 bands is much more interesting than 100 big guns calling
cq on two bands, especially since by Sunday, the big guns will have worked
most of the people in the contest anyway. (If you don't think this is a
real effect, how seriously do you listen for multipliers in the
multi-multi row at the bottom of 7mhz in a dx contest?).
This is also not good either are far as getting new hams interested in
contesting...a lot of the fun when just starting out is to be able to call
cq and get stations coming back to your signal- harder to do if the band
is filled up with all those extra cq's. Also, I think single ops using 2
radios are a little less careful about stepping on weak stations when they
start cq'ing on the second band.
I don't see anything wrong with using a second radio for S/P,
however, I don't see any way rules could be designed to distinguish
between the two cases.
See you in the SprINT (from IL this time)...
Torsten N4OGW/9
n4ogw@uiuc.edu
>From Jay Townsend" <jayt@comtch.iea.com Wed Mar 30 16:58:56 1994
From: Jay Townsend" <jayt@comtch.iea.com (Jay Townsend)
Subject: Heil Pro-Set
Message-ID: <m0pm3bU-00013UC@comtch.iea.com>
>
> If you really want to know how they are at customer support, call 'em and
> tell them that you are having trouble driving your IC781 mic audio with
> your heil product. Then post the message that produces on your answering
> machine.
>
> 73, Eric
Eric, Sounds like you either like it or hate it. Why don't you save us the
phone call and explain?
I received my Heil new ear pieces, but installation doesn't look all that
easy to me. The old ones are glued in!
73,
--
Jay Townsend, Ws7i < jayt@comtch.iea.com >
>From j.p. kleinhaus" <kleinhaj@mary.iia.org Wed Mar 30 17:07:36 1994
From: j.p. kleinhaus" <kleinhaj@mary.iia.org (j.p. kleinhaus)
Subject: single/multi
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9403301129.A5657-0100000@mary>
On Tue, 29 Mar 1994, David O. Hachadorian wrote:
> Why don't we all save ourselves a lot of trouble and outlaw single/multi, or
> at least the practice of calling CQ on one frequency while involved in a QSO
> on another frequency? I think single/multi stacks up as follows:
>
> On the downside:
>
> * Cost of additional radio, amplifier, and antennas.
>
> * Additional station complexity, in a manner that does not contribute
> to non-contest mainstream operating, technology or operator skills.
I s this guy kidding me?? I guess it's no skill to listen to 2 radios while
typing on a keyboard and watching a monitor! No additional technology is
needed to minimize inter-station interference or to split stacks of phased
antennas either...right, get a grip on reality!
> * Additional spectrum utilization, since while one frequency is
> occupied with a QSO, another is occupied with an automated CQ.
NOT!! Only one signal is on the air at a time...one of the other skills
that you don't develop is timing and rhythm.
> * Additional handicap to stations with limited real estate, since
> physical separation between antennas enhances the ability to receive
> on one band while transmitting 1500 Watts on another.
Let's equalize evrything...glad I just bought a new QTH that gives me room
to experiment. Certainly no technology can help with this problem.
> * Discouragement to middle-level contestors who sometimes compete quite
> successfully with relatively simple setups, but really don't take it
> seriously enough to go to the extremes of single/multi.
That's what we need...more people who don't take competition seriously!
Actually...this will serve to encourage improvements.
> On the upside:
>
> * More fun? I doubt it. It's more like hard, nerve-wracking work.
Hey, nothing worth anything comes easy..or di we lose some values here?
> * Higher score? Yes, for the relatively small percentage of contest
> participants who are willing and able to make the required
> investment. BUT, as more and more people are forced to use these
> methods, the scoring advantage will be lost. Why don't we just kill
> it now and spare ourselves the agony?
That's correct..higher scores for those of us with a desire to win!
The main pint though is that the development of new technology and
techniques will not stop..more strategies will always be discovered.
The people at the top (the innovators) will continue to find new ays
to improve their scores.
J.P. AA2DU
kleinhaj@IIA.ORG
>From dcurtis@mipos2.intel.com (Dave Curtis) Wed Mar 30 16:19:16 1994
From: dcurtis@mipos2.intel.com (Dave Curtis) (Dave Curtis)
Subject: single/multi
Message-ID: <9403301619.AA07886@climax.intel.com>
Doesn't seem to me like the expense of single-multi *has*
to be huge. The second radio doesn't need to be the
latest box to add lots'o mults. It doesn't need an
amp, or at least it could be a cheap 1/2 gallon. An
older transceiver (about $300), and *maybe* and
SB-200 ($300) would probably be more challenge than I
could handle for some time! I thought contesting was
*supposed* to be nerve-wracking! That's why we all
sprint! The analogy to Nintendo is very good --
one rig/no-amp is the first screen; when that is
comfortable, add an amp, when that is comfortable,
add a second rig, when that is comfortable, add
a second amp -- now you're on the fourth screen
and the flaming-razorback-hedgehogs are throwing
acid-spitting frizbees or whatever -- anyway
single-multi adds a new dimension of operator
challenge, and it *can* be done without breaking
the bank.
73, Dave NG0X
>From Ed Stratton 5637 <EStratto@chipcom.com> Wed Mar 30
>20:41:00 1994
From: Ed Stratton 5637 <EStratto@chipcom.com> (Ed Stratton 5637)
Subject: Operating from another station and QTH
Message-ID: <2D99E448@msmailer>
Actually u could use any call as long as the original licensee agree as per
FCC rules, maybe specfic contests have a special requirement, but I doubt
it? I don't even believe they need to be present either at the acutal
operation location.
>From the W1 area, it could be W1AA or the call could be W6AA, `not even
W6AA/1 is reguired it also could be DL1AA/W1.
Call signs are just a formality now days.
AD8V--eds--
----------
From: CQ-Contest-Relay
To: Joel Magid
Cc: CONTEST
Subject: Re: Operating from another station and QTH
> I am licensed as WU1F ...... if I operate from the QTH of W1xxx
> what callsign do I sign.
Whichever one you and W1xxx agree on.
--Trey
>From D. Leeson" <0005543629@mcimail.com Wed Mar 30 17:36:00 1994
From: D. Leeson" <0005543629@mcimail.com (D. Leeson)
Subject: Heil ProSet
Message-ID: <13940330173631/0005543629NA3EM@mcimail.com>
Carl, AI6V, had a new Heil ProSet at P40V for use with his TS-930. For
some reason (perhaps rig input impedance) it had much too much high
frequency sensitivity and was very subject to breath popping. It just
didn't sound good, and reports were not complimentary, so we went back
to the older headsets with HC-5 elements for ARRL DX SSB. Carl's set
has the HC-4, and we heard at least one other similar setup from a W6
that also didn't sound at all useful. Before you go to extremes and
get the HC-4 element in the new headset, you might want to borrow one
and check it out with your rig.
I have noticed that my older HC-5 mic's are quite sensitive to load
impedance. They sound somewhat flat and bassy into a 1K ohm load as
on the more recent rigs, but they really come alive when operated into
a 20K ohm load. I use a simple FET adapter to get this effect. I have
mentioned this to Bob Heil at Dayton several years running, but that
isn't the best time to get someone's attention.
Given the limited size of the ham market, we're lucky to have someone
who is willing to produce an article we need.
Dave, W6QHS dleeson@micmail.com
>From D. Leeson" <0005543629@mcimail.com Wed Mar 30 17:47:00 1994
From: D. Leeson" <0005543629@mcimail.com (D. Leeson)
Subject: S/M
Message-ID: <54940330174745/0005543629NA3EM@mcimail.com>
I for one would be very negative on a rules change or separate class that
would penalize technology improvements like two-radio operation that stretch
the envelope of single-op contesting. When I was a kid, I had no problem
learning how to send cw left handed while writing with the right hand. Now
the equivalent is multi-radio/multi-computer operation which can be as
simple as a subreceiver in a 950 or FT1000 or as complex as completely
separate stations tied together with an A/B box so you are guaranteed to
have only one signal on the air.
I learned in 20 years of auto racing experience that misguided attempts to
legislate against technology improvements result in bland competitions that
aren't worth the effort to learn how to win. I don't think that a separate
S/M class would attract any interest; it certainly wouldn't be something
I'd walk down the block for.
73 de Dave, W6QHS
>From R.SCHREIBMAIER" <bob@mtdcr.att.com Wed Mar 30 12:48:59 1994
From: R.SCHREIBMAIER" <bob@mtdcr.att.com (R.SCHREIBMAIER)
Subject: Field Day (fwd)
Thanks to everyone for their responses on using WARC bands on Field
Day. It looks like the question is now moot! There is a rule change
starting with the '94 Field Day. See the attached.
Just when I was going to string up that 8-element wire beam... 8^{)
--
---------------------------------------------------------
| Bob Schreibmaier | UUCP: att!mtdcr!bob |
| AT&T Bell Laboratories | INTERNET: bob@mtdcr.att.com |
| 200 Laurel Avenue | Telephone: 908-957-2591 |
| Middletown, NJ 07747 | FAX: 908-957-7105 |
---------------------------------------------------------
Forwarded message:
> From mtgpfs1!att!arrl.org!blunt Wed Mar 30 07:26:16 1994
> To: Robert.Schreibmaier@att.com
> Message-Id: <8467@bl>
> From: blunt@arrl.org (Billy Lunt KR1R)
> Original-To: bob@mtdcr.att.com
> Cc: cq-contest@tgv.com
> Subject: Field Day
>
> Bob K2PH asked:
>
> >Have any of you used the WARC bands on Field Day? What's
> >the consensus -- is it worthwhile to try them, or a waste
> >of time?
>
> You may NOT use the WARC bands in this year's Field Day.
>
> This is a change in the rules starting with for the '94 Field Day.
>
> The new rule reads:
>
> 2) Object: To work as many stations as possible on any or
> all amateur bands (except 10, 18 AND 24-MHz bands) and, in doing
> so, to learn to operate in abnormal situations under less-than-
> optimum conditions. A premium is placed on skills and equipment
> developed to meet the challenge of emergency preparedness and to
> acquaint the public with the capabilities of Amateur Radio.
>
> 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 geoiii@bga.com (George Fremin III - WB5VZL) Wed Mar 30 18:15:20 1994
From: geoiii@bga.com (George Fremin III - WB5VZL) (george fremin iii)
Subject: single/multi
Message-ID: <199403301815.AA01795@zoom.bga.com>
Eric Gustafson writes:
: (speaking as a most of the time non-contester) that I don't think it is
: particularly useful to be working to find ways to make contests consume
: even MORE bandwidth.
i still am not sure i understand this comment -k6ll made it also-.
if i am calling cq - and another station is calling cq. and i answer
his cq with my 2nd rig - this adds more signals? it makes use of
one of those signals. as i said before - you have to call cq to win
contests.
k5gn once said "he who calls the most CQs wins" this is still true.
--
George Fremin III
Austin, Texas C.K.U.
WB5VZL
512/416-0140
geoiii@bga.com
>From Skelton, Tom" <TSkelton@engineer.clemsonsc.NCR.COM Wed Mar 30 18:52:00
>1994
From: Skelton, Tom" <TSkelton@engineer.clemsonsc.NCR.COM (Skelton, Tom)
Subject: FW: Heil Pro-Set
Message-ID: <2D99EC7E@admin.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM>
Anyway - kudos are definitely in order, at least based on the phone call,
from Bob Heil and Heil Sound.
For others in the same predicament using the FT-1000D and the Pro-Set 4,
I will be happy to follow-up and let you know the results.
73 de Sandy WA6BXH/7J1ABV slay@netcom.com
I met Bob Heil a few years ago at (I think) the Atlanta hamfest. He gave
a presentation on audio, and really convinced me that he knows what
he's talking about. What was funny to me was that he was flogging us
for paying $30 (back then) for Icom/Kenwood/Yaesu (can't remember
the brand name) microphones that used 50 cent mike elements sold
in Tokyo. I bought my first Heil boom headset shortly thereafter, and
the only thing I consider comparable is the old Astatic D104. Now,
if I could just get a D104 on a headset.....
73,Tom WB4iUX
Tom.Skelton@ClemsonSC.NCR.COM
>From lew tompkins" <ltompkins@rosedale.org Wed Mar 30 17:39:13 1994
From: lew tompkins" <ltompkins@rosedale.org (lew tompkins)
Subject: Single/Multi
Message-ID: <chW7+pEQaha@pclan.rosedale.org>
The Single/Multi type of contest operating has certainly sparked some
interesting discussion. I haven't tried it yet (only have one xcvr and one
amp),but it looks like its going to become a requirement in order to stay
competativein the single-op unassisted class.
Up until 10-12 years ago I used Collins "S" lines backed up by other "S" lines
or Drake "R" lines. A mound of switch boxes and cabling interconnected them.
Of course QSK mods required more relay boxes and interconnections. There had
to be multiple amplifiers so that when one "smoked" another was available. All
this was just to be able to compete single-op with back-up radios. I recall
W2VJN casually commenting about how his new TS-930 had re-engineered his
operating position: "one radio... few cables....no clutter...right there in the
middle of an almost empty operating table". Well, I bought in, and have had no
breakdowns (that couldn't either be ignored or quickly fixed) using only one
Japanese transceiver and one Alpha. Of course I did have to find a place to
put the computer a few years back.....and there are a few more cables snaking
around the table top again...
The overwhelming sentiment expressed on the reflector so far appears to support
the single/multi style. Actually most of the arguments (use of technology, use
of gray matter, etc.) are also consistant with multiple simultaneous (not
just interleaved) signals on the air. Maybe there's been some prior reflector
discussion about the pro's and con's of getting the rules changed to support
that, but on the surface it appears to me to be a logical next step in the
evolution.
|