KI4HN, KA9FOX, and I will be heading to St. Maarten to operate PJ8Z - M/S -
in the upcoming CQ WW SSB Contest. As it looks right now we will have 1 run
station and 1 mult station.
I'm looking for information on using coax stubs for filtering between the two
stations. Some questions that come to mind include:
1) Lengths required for nulling various bands - open/shorted?
2) Can stuff like RG58 be used or should we stick with RG8 (will
be running about 1KW on each station?)
3) Do they need to be made with 50 ohm coax or can 75 ohm be
used (have some of both laying around?)
4) Can we put these on a coax switch and switch in the ones we
need depending on band?
5) Is it worth all this or should we just get out the MC/Visa and
buy the Dunestar filters?
Any info and notes from practical experience would be much appreciated.
(But please, no Calculus equations or Fourier transforms!! :-) (-: )
Please reply to me directly... I post a summary of responses to the
reflector.
Thanks!!
73 Mike N0BSH
n0bsh@aol.com
>From AGDM25A@prodigy.com ( KEVIN - WA8ZDT) Sat Sep 3 05:15:46 1994
From: AGDM25A@prodigy.com ( KEVIN - WA8ZDT) ( KEVIN - WA8ZDT)
Subject: WOMEN & CQ
Message-ID: <013.01214616.AGDM25A@prodigy.com>
Women & contesting? Is it possible to mix the two?
Eight weeks 'til the CQWW SSB. Thats the beginning of four major conests i
n five weekends! How does one balance the family/social side with the
contest competitive side?
You can build a great super station with all the amps, radios, computers,
towers and antennas phased this way & that to squeeze out the last 3%
advantage, and then it just sits there all weekend because its your
significant other's birthday, reunion, mother's visiting, or shes just
gotta last minute case of PMS.
Yet woe to he who spends four full weekends locked up in a radio shack and
neglects the little woman! Come December, you may find yourself headed
for divorce court ... and trying to explain that your FT1000 is only worth
seven hundred bux towards the property settlement!
in the "doghouse" .... WA8ZDT
>From Peter G. Smith" <n4zr@netcom.com Sat Sep 3 12:26:33 1994
From: Peter G. Smith" <n4zr@netcom.com (Peter G. Smith)
Subject: POWER SURGE PROTECTOR
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9409030417.A16599-0100000@netcom13>
Did you ever get an answer?
73, Pete
N4ZR@netcom.com
"Better, faster,cheaper -- choose any two"
>From barry@w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) Sat Sep 3 13:04:30 1994
From: barry@w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Subject: WOMEN & CQ
Message-ID: <8XP3Rc1w165w@w2up.wells.com>
AGDM25A@prodigy.com ( KEVIN - WA8ZDT) writes:
> Women & contesting? Is it possible to mix the two?
>
If and when you find the answer, pse pass it along the the rest of us!
Maybe we need a new contest category - single op henpecked.
73 Barry
--
Barry N. Kutner, W2UP Usenet/Internet: barry@w2up.wells.com
Newtown, PA Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
Packet Cluster: W2UP >K2TW (FRC)
.......................................................................
>From Walton L. Stinson" <wstinson@csn.org Sat Sep 3 13:37:16 1994
From: Walton L. Stinson" <wstinson@csn.org (Walton L. Stinson)
Subject: 10 minute rule-EVOLUTION OF RADIOS/COMPUTERS OPS
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9409030600.A23307-0100000@teal.csn.org>
On Fri, 2 Sep 1994, Victor Burns wrote:
> ARRL-Fully intends or intended one upon a time-that just one radio is
> present on the site (in theory) I presume by the rule:
>
> "D(1) Multioperator-Single Transmitter. .... 'Once the 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'".
>
> It really seems that the intention is that if you change bands in hopes of
> snaging a new mult, you have listened there and ethically you must stay on
> that new band for 10 minutes-EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T WORK ANYONE.
Victor, your interpretation of the wording is a reasonable one. however,
this point was raised in an earlier discussion several months ago on this
reflector. at that time, KR1R, ARRL Contest Desk, clarified that the rule
is not being interpreted to prohibit listening by a second or third
station on other bands. 73, Walt, W0CP, (CAC vice chairman)
>From Bob Perring <73613.2161@compuserve.com> Sat Sep 3 15:37:25 1994
From: Bob Perring <73613.2161@compuserve.com> (Bob Perring)
Subject: none
Message-ID: <940903143725_73613.2161_FHV82-1@CompuServe.COM>
set mail
>From H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil@seattleu.edu Sat Sep 3 17:45:38 1994
From: H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil@seattleu.edu (H. Ward Silver)
Subject: WOMEN & CQ
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9409030933.B6052-a100000@bach.seattleu.edu>
> Maybe we need a new contest category - single op henpecked.
Or the converse, single-single-op! A possible cease-fire settlement might
be to trade one weekend of family-only for each weekend of ham-radio-only.
Also, wouldn't it be nice if:
a) ARRL DX CW wasn't on Valentine's Day EVER, and
b) CQ WPX CW wasn't on Memorial Day Weekend, and
c) CQ WW CW wasn't on Thanksgiving weekend?
I mean, let's build in some serious domestic difficulty by choosing big
family dates (at least for the US) for major contests...
I should worry, my ten-year-olds will soon be licensed and I'll never get
the shack to myself ever again!
73, Ward N0AX
>From H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil@seattleu.edu Sat Sep 3 17:53:48 1994
From: H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil@seattleu.edu (H. Ward Silver)
Subject: WRTC-95 Comments
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9409030948.C6052-c100000@bach.seattleu.edu>
As the WRTC-90 committee member in charge of administrating station
selection and equipment, I have some comments about station selection, etc.
First, I am in total agreement that the stations were not equal in
WRTC-90. Geography and a limited station pool forced us into a
less-than-optimum solution. Remember, this was the first WRTC and we did
not have an exactly overwhelming repsonse to the call for stations. Once
it became more clear as to what was happening, many more QTH's were
offered, but it was too late to accommodate them, both from a logistics
standpoint and out of fairness to those who were courageous enough to step
up early. This WRTC should have much less problem in getting enough
stations to control variation in station abilities.
Second, the high scoring stations were NOT the highest rated stations. In
fact, the winners were from stations squarely in the middle of the
ratings. The winner was at a station just under the median rating. We
had more low scores at good stations (6) than high scores at poor stations
(4). The best performance was the G-team which placed 7th out of 22 at
the lowest-rated station of all. Clearly, operator ability is a stronger
factor than station rating. As long as there is a "reasonable" equality
between stations, I feel that the best operators will get a fair shot at
winning.
3) Off-the-air items, such as PED, might be used as supplemental events,
but don't really measure "heat-of-battle" performance. I think the
distinction to be made is whether a decathlon-style cumulative
championship is more realistic than a winner-take-all single event. This
is open for discussion.
4) My feelings about packet and other advanced technology are that only
stuff that is fairly widely available should be used. Packet cluster is
not widely available outside of US and Europe. Computers are widely
available and should be used by the competitors to the limits of their
ability, although the configuration of the machine may be restricted by
the committee, ie; no MASTER.DAT, etc. This is similar to auto racing
where there is a fairly open stance toward technology with certain
limiting rules.
In general, WRTC is an evolving event. There will be a learning process
covering many years before a widely accepted "championship" format is
accepted.
After WRTC-90, many contest organizations around the world, including
those on the West Coast, were solicited to take up the challenge of
putting on another show. The current sponsors were the ONLY ones who have
stepped up to take a shot at it. While discussions of the rules and
parameters is to be encouraged and can only strengthen the event, we must
defer to their best judgement and cheerfully accept the final result.
Following the event, we should all expect to review and critique the
format and how it might be improved next time.
Ward, N0AX
>From Peter G. Smith" <n4zr@netcom.com Sat Sep 3 19:06:17 1994
From: Peter G. Smith" <n4zr@netcom.com (Peter G. Smith)
Subject: Tower basing summary
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9409031148.A9366-0100000@netcom2>
I have now completed the summary of the tower basing discussion - pier
pin vs. embedded section - and will be glad to provide it to anyone who
asks, by E-mail. It's too long (over 16K) for me to be comfortable with
the bandwidth involved in posting it.
73, Pete
N4ZR@netcom.com
"Better, faster,cheaper -- choose any two"
>From Robert Wood <w5robert@blkbox.COM> Sat Sep 3 19:40:13 1994
From: Robert Wood <w5robert@blkbox.COM> (Robert Wood)
Subject: Antennas,contests&women
Message-ID: <9409031340.aa17635@blkbox.COM>
This is a new problem for me. When one pulls down a yagi and
wishes to store it fully assemblied but out of the way, where does
it go? I've laid in on the garage roof for now, but a big wind would
get it. Any good ideas ??? (24' boom 105bas)
--
73
Robert Wood
WB5CRG
w5robert@blkbox.com (blkbox is NOT blackbox, inc.!)
w5robert@blkbox.com@menudo.uh.edu
|