Maybe your special rules should read "The only allowable antenna is the mike
cord. Operators must continue the contest until they can no longer stand
holding onto the mic..."
Paul, KB8N
>From Douglas S. Zwiebel" <0006489207@mcimail.com Thu Sep 21 14:00:00 1995
From: Douglas S. Zwiebel" <0006489207@mcimail.com (Douglas S. Zwiebel)
Subject: IG9 skeds
Message-ID: <84950921130048/0006489207PK4EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
I feel that the offer of making schedules with IG9 (or anybody) before
the contest period begins is totally unethical. Also, making the schedules
would be similarly unethical. Does this measure contest ability? This
view is mine and NOT necessarily that of the CQWW contest committee. But
I feel it should be incorporated into the rules. This is (IMHO) cheating.
de Doug KR2Q@mcimail.com
>From Daniel R. Violette" <Daniel_R._Violette@ccmail.anatcp.rockwell.com Thu
>Sep 21 17:47:29 1995
From: Daniel R. Violette" <Daniel_R._Violette@ccmail.anatcp.rockwell.com
(Daniel R. Violette)
Subject: Re[2]: Rohn 25 capacity?
Message-ID: <9508218116.AA811699204@ccmail.anatcp.rockwell.com>
I won't get the story right but here is a stab at it regarding stress
software:
NI6W (he is a mechanical engineer, I think) had a program out a couple
years ago called Yagi Stress (I think again). It helped in the design
of yagis to survive (I think (for a third time)). Never saw the
program, probably didn't do well (haven't seen an ad in awhile), but
he may be a possibility to do something like this if it is worth his
effort. He appears to be a knowledgeable mechanical guy and a
programmer. But I would guess it would only sell 10s of programs, or
to be worth the effort cost too much and sell very few.
73,
Dan KI6X
e-mail: Daniel_R._Violette@ccmail.anatcp.rockwell.com
>From [user unknown]" <cmschonewaldcox@ucdavis.edu Thu Sep 21 16:43:09 1995
From: [user unknown]" <cmschonewaldcox@ucdavis.edu (user unknown)
Subject: Skeds
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950921083044.1172B-100000@chip.ucdavis.edu>
The position of the CQWW Contest Committee concerning pre-contest skeds
has been stated before. They are OK. As long as you do not say, "OK work
only me and then QRT". The only skeds that have a significant effect on
one's score are multipliers.
Have fun in the upcoming contests.
73 K3EST
CQWW Director
re:clarification of skeds
>From i4ufh@contest.dsnet.it (Fabio I4UFH) Thu Sep 21 16:04:27 1995
From: i4ufh@contest.dsnet.it (Fabio I4UFH) (Fabio I4UFH)
Subject: WRTC 96
Message-ID: <9509211504.AA07003@maggiore.dsnet.it>
Hello Guys,
Isn't there any more Press release about the WRTC 96 ???
I was not on the reflector for few day, due provider problems,
can anyone bounce me any more message, if any, after the PRESS
RELEASE #3 ???
I am quite interested to know the new selection criteria to be
eleigible for the competition ......
Thank's de Fabio I4UFH / IG9R CQWW SSB 95
e-mail i4ufh@contest.dsnet.it
>From De Syam <syam@Glue.umd.edu> Thu Sep 21 17:28:04 1995
From: De Syam <syam@Glue.umd.edu> (De Syam)
Subject: 40 Meter EU (and JA !)
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950921121241.3866A-100000@cappuccino.eng.umd.edu>
On Tue, 19 Sep 1995, Bill Fisher wrote:
> It's interesting to talk to Jeff (zero) after a DX contest (when he used to
> operate them) and compare notes about 40m. I always here comments about the
> good JA opening at 0730z. I'm always there, and am never able to work JA at
> this time.
>From my 40 meter log in the 1993 CQWW CW:
27 Nov 93:
0708 JJ1NNJ
0714 JA7YAA
0717 AH0K
0718 JA1JKG
0720 UA0JQ
0721 JA0YAK
0726 JE1CGC
0727 JH2VYZ
0727 JA8YBY
0728 JH1YHS
0728 JF2BNG
(+ 26 more JA's, 2 more UA0's and a UA9 up to 0815)
It's not there every year, but when the K index is nice and low or just
beginning a sharp rise, there they are. This is generally a phenomenon
in the CQWW CW only, since it is the only major contest we have that is
less than 30 days away from the shortest day of the year in the Northern
Hemisphere. As W0UN indicated, at this time of day on 40 "one bearing
fits all", as the key is not to point at the great circle path to the
target destination, but to the path which has the greatest amount of
darkness from here to the target destination. This run of JA's was
interspersed with gobs of Europeans as well, many of them already in
sunlit areas, and the key was to hit the closest area of darkness to
them. The best bearing on this opening from here is about 30 degrees
and all stations, no matter what the great circle bearing to them happens
to be, peak up at this same heading at this time. Even a couple of VK's
called in on this run.
The antenna is a 3-el Telrex on a 46 foot boom at 94 feet.
Very 73,
Fred Laun, K3ZO
>From biss@epg.nist.gov (Robert Biss) Thu Sep 21 13:34:48 1995
From: biss@epg.nist.gov (Robert Biss) (Robert Biss)
Subject: Skeds
Message-ID: <Q0619429@washer.NIST.GOV>
----------
X-Sun-Data-Type: text
X-Sun-Data-Description: text
X-Sun-Data-Name: text
X-Sun-Content-Lines: 19
X-Sun-Content-Length: 576
From: "[user unknown]" <cmschonewaldcox@ucdavis.edu>
To: cq-contest@tgv.com
Subject: Skeds
The position of the CQWW Contest Committee concerning pre-contest skeds
has been stated before. They are OK. As long as you do not say, "OK work
only me and then QRT". The only skeds that have a significant effect on
one's score are multipliers.
Have fun in the upcoming contests.
73 K3EST
CQWW Director
re:clarification of skeds
Hi Bob,
Wouldn't that be a 'UNIQUE' and be dropped from one's log!!!!
73's bob K3ZNV
BISS@EPG.NIST.GOV
>From Jamie Tolbert <jtolbert@sprite.gremlan.org> Thu Sep 21 19:29:02 1995
From: Jamie Tolbert <jtolbert@sprite.gremlan.org> (Jamie Tolbert)
Subject: 40-2cd
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9509211431.A4097-0100000@sprite>
can anyone copy the diagram/specs of a cushcraft 40-2cd and send to me??
i will gladly pay copy/postage costs. has anyone had any luck converting a
cushcraft 40m rotating dipole to a 40-2?? i am attempting to improve my
CONTEST antenna . pls reply direct to jtolbert@gremlan.org 73 Jamie WW3S
>From Bob Schreibmaier" <k2ph@dxis.monroe.pa.us Thu Sep 21 20:45:04 1995
From: Bob Schreibmaier" <k2ph@dxis.monroe.pa.us (Bob Schreibmaier)
Subject: Skeds
Message-ID: <m0svrYR-0002ZOC@dxis.monroe.pa.us>
>> The position of the CQWW Contest Committee concerning pre-contest skeds
>> has been stated before. They are OK. As long as you do not say, "OK work
>> only me and then QRT". The only skeds that have a significant effect on
>> one's score are multipliers.
>
> Wouldn't that be a 'UNIQUE' and be dropped from one's log!!!!
>
Seems to me that being unique should not necessarily be a criterion
for dropping a contact from the log. Busted calls, ghost contacts,
etc. should be criteria for dropping a contact. But, the fact that
only one station worked it shouldn't be grounds for dropping it. IMHO.
73,
Bob K2PH
--
+------------------ \-\-\-\ -----------------------------+
| Bob Schreibmaier K2PH | INTERNET: k2ph@dxis.monroe.pa.us |
| (a.k.a. "The QRPer") | ICBM: 40o55'N 75o30'W |
| Kresgeville, PA | Euthanize the Limbaugh Loonies. |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
>From Larry Tyree <tree@cmicro.com> Thu Sep 21 22:09:54 1995
From: Larry Tyree <tree@cmicro.com> (Larry Tyree)
Subject: Skeds
Message-ID: <199509212109.OAA16012@cascade.cmicro.com>
>
> Wouldn't that be a 'UNIQUE' and be dropped from one's log!!!!
Uniques don't get dropped from the logs. They just get looked at more
closely.
Despite the rules, making skeds is not contesting and shouldn't be
encouraged. This has been done before in some domestic contests
and public opinion said "Don't allow this".
Tree N6TR
tree@cmicro.com
>From beaton@wintermute.co.uk (Alastair Beaton) Fri Sep 22 00:09:53 1995
From: beaton@wintermute.co.uk (Alastair Beaton) (Alastair Beaton)
Subject: Skeds
Message-ID: <199509212309.AAA07854@oberon.wintermute.co.uk>
Hi All,
I agree with Doug (KR2Q) that skeds just aren't in the spirit of
contesting. Legal or not, I also reckon that they're a waste of time and effort:
At the agreed time (providing you remember), you break off what
you're doing, interrupting your "natural rythmn" and losing your clear-ish
frequency. You wade around through the noise for several minutes (like
looking for a small frog in a very dirty pond) and eventually find your
exciting contact several kliks away from the agreed spot. Then you wait
while he works two or three other guys who also found him. You exchange
"59"s, and plod off back to where you were, only to spend more time looking
for or "generating" a new clear frequency, then getting back up to speed.
I learnt all this the hard way the first couple of CQWWs I did.
Firing up the station a few hours before the contest I was deluged by
stations calling to arrange skeds (some years GM is quite rare). Scraps of
paper jammed behind the dials on the linear and peeking out from behind the
circle map on the wall. I became transfixed, weighed down by my obligation
to these guys. After trying one or two (as above) I dropped the notes in the
waste bin and watched my scoring rate increase.
73
Al, GM4BAP (w. GM4DMZ M/M)
*** Dear Santa, I have been very good. Can I have four Sturba curtains and
a Henry 8K? ***
>From km9p@is.net (Bill Fisher) Fri Sep 22 00:49:31 1995
From: km9p@is.net (Bill Fisher) (Bill Fisher)
Subject: Uniques & CQWW (Was Skeds)
Message-ID: <199509212349.TAA01922@mail1.is.net>
>Seems to me that being unique should not necessarily be a criterion
>for dropping a contact from the log. Busted calls, ghost contacts,
>etc. should be criteria for dropping a contact. But, the fact that
>only one station worked it shouldn't be grounds for dropping it. IMHO.
>73,
>Bob K2PH
Can I disagree?
I think it would be great for the CQWW committee to come out next year and
say: OK folks.. This year if you work a unique (however they define it)
then you lose the QSO. Let the computers do their thing, spit out the
results, and print em. Get the results out faster and the I bet not much
changes from the present system but faster results.
I'de be interested in someone's opinion on this subject that actually checks
these logs. I may be wrong.
73
Bill
>From tree@cmicro.com (Larry "Tree" Tyree) Fri Sep 22 01:46:49 1995
From: tree@cmicro.com (Larry "Tree" Tyree) (Larry "Tree" Tyree)
Subject: I was wrong!!
Message-ID: <199509220046.RAA17755@cascade.cmicro.com>
I made a mistake. My comment about skeds in contests not being a
part of contesting only applies below 50 MHz. I know that skeds on the
UHF bands (esp >= 1 GHz) are not unusaul and are generally accepted as
SOP.
I just forgot about them when making my comment, which I stick to below
50 MHz and specifically allplies to skeds made during the contest or
via non amateur radio means during the contest.
Tree N6TR
tree@cmicro.com
Tree N6TR
tree@cmicro.com
>From wd8aub@ix.netcom.com (Doug Klein) Thu Sep 21 21:30:39 1995
From: wd8aub@ix.netcom.com (Doug Klein) (Doug Klein)
Subject: Uniques & CQWW (Was Skeds)
Message-ID: <199509220033.RAA13973@ix2.ix.netcom.com>
>>Seems to me that being unique should not necessarily be a criterion
>>for dropping a contact from the log. Busted calls, ghost contacts,
>>etc. should be criteria for dropping a contact. But, the fact that
>>only one station worked it shouldn't be grounds for dropping it. IMHO.
>>73,
>>Bob K2PH
Bill, KM9P replied:
>Can I disagree?
>
>I think it would be great for the CQWW committee to come out next year and
>say: OK folks.. This year if you work a unique (however they define it)
>then you lose the QSO. Let the computers do their thing, spit out the
>results, and print em. Get the results out faster and the I bet not much
>changes from the present system but faster results.
>
>I'de be interested in someone's opinion on this subject that actually checks
>these logs. I may be wrong.
>
>73
>
>Bill
>
I have to disagree with Bill. Sorry Bill.
Don, K8MFO is one of the best ops around (I'm sure all would agree). I looked
as his unique rate (remember when the OH's did that unique analysis a
couple years ago?)... and Don's numbers were astonishing. As I recall, he had
about 1% or less uniques. They gave Don a list of the uniques.
Don compared the uniques to his log. As I recall the results of his research...
About 10 of the 12 marked qsos as uniques he got qsl cards to prove they
were correct as logged. The other 2 were maybe questionable.
Of the 10 that were definately good, a few reasons possibly existed. Don is
friends with lots of the OH gang (and lots of others all over the world). Some
of them just get on and casually operate. Maybe make a half dozen qsos or
so and turn the rig off. They just get on and work a few of their friends. Not
to pump up their scores, just to say howdy to an old friend.
Another reason included a few LOCALS who had called him and truthfully
only made one or two qsos in the contest.
Explain to me the wisdom of automatically removing qsos just because
they are not in anybody elses electronic log? 90% of the uniques
indicated in his log as "bad or busted" calls were CORRECTLY
copied.
You have to realize that there are MANY MANY casual operators who NEVER
send in their logs!
And before you flame me, I will admit that not everyone has Don's
accuracy. You will find more busted calls in my log, no doubt.
Mark me down as being against removing uniques. Cross check me
against the logged call, and if it ain't there, YUP, pull it from my log.
Ok, that's my soapbox. Sorry for bandwidth. I usually sit here and just
read the comments... so I hope you allow me this binge....
73 de Doug, WD8AUB WD8AUB@IX.NETXCOM.COM
>From Lau, Zack, KH6CP" <zlau@arrl.org Fri Sep 22 01:25:00 1995
From: Lau, Zack, KH6CP" <zlau@arrl.org (Lau, Zack, KH6CP)
Subject: Skeds
Message-ID: <3062038F@arrl.org>
-Tree N6TR said:
>Despite the rules, making skeds is not contesting and shouldn't be
>encouraged. This has been done before in some domestic contests
>and public opinion said "Don't allow this".
I disagree. Sure, I seem to make random contacts every year on
10 GHz. Last year it was a rain scatter pileup while on Greylock.
This year I had a couple unusual bounces while on Mt Washington
so people dumped in their calls.
But, scheduling is a big part of the ARRL 10 GHz Cumulative
Contest, and is officially sanctioned in rule 7. At least among
the top stations, this is considered a necessary and important
part of competitive microwave contesting.
Like other aspects of operating a competitive station, it takes
a fair amount of skill to know when and what schedules to run
with the available stations.
Unlike HF contesting, a strong part of microwave contesting is man vs.
nature--who can make the longest contact? Thus, competitors actually
help each other set up schedules. Different, yes. But I still consider it
contesting.
Does scheduling belong in HF/MF contesting? Probably not in SS, since
there is a big emphasis on finding all the multipliers. On the other hand,
if someone wants to schedule contacts during tough propagation openings
in the CQ WW to help their multiplier count, I don't have a problem with
that. I think it depends on the contest.
Zack Lau KH6CP/1
zlau@arrl.org
BTW, my longest QSO was 549 km on 10 GHz--not
quite up to West Coast standards but I'm only running
0.60 watts--got to get that 10 watt amp going.
>From wb2r@ix.netcom.com (Barry K. Cummings ) Fri Sep 22 01:17:32 1995
From: wb2r@ix.netcom.com (Barry K. Cummings ) (Barry K. Cummings )
Subject: IG9 skeds
Message-ID: <199509220017.RAA08094@ix.ix.netcom.com>
You wrote:
>
>I feel that the offer of making schedules with IG9 (or anybody) before
>the contest period begins is totally unethical. Also, making the
schedules
>would be similarly unethical. Does this measure contest ability?
This
>view is mine and NOT necessarily that of the CQWW contest committee.
But
>I feel it should be incorporated into the rules. This is (IMHO)
cheating.
>de Doug KR2Q@mcimail.com
>
>
Agree. Totally.
......................................................73, Barry
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Barry K Cummings WB2R eMail WB2R@ix.netcom.com +
+ Delran, NJ Packet WB2R@WB2R (FRC PacketCluster) +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From km9p@is.net (Bill Fisher) Fri Sep 22 01:03:36 1995
From: km9p@is.net (Bill Fisher) (Bill Fisher)
Subject: Uniques & CQWW (Was Skeds)
Message-ID: <199509220003.UAA02143@mail1.is.net>
>> say: OK folks.. This year if you work a unique (however they define it)
>> then you lose the QSO. Let the computers do their thing, spit out the
>
>I guess the key phrase is "however they define it". I'd hate to think that
>when I work a non-contesting friend, and I am his only QSO, that that Q is
>summarily thrown out. Give me a break.
No, no, no... A contesting friend shouldn't JUST WORK YOU!
The guy with the most friends wins. What a lousy concept.
73
>From km9p@is.net (Bill Fisher) Fri Sep 22 01:03:36 1995
From: km9p@is.net (Bill Fisher) (Bill Fisher)
Subject: Uniques & CQWW (Was Skeds)
Message-ID: <199509220003.UAA02143@mail1.is.net>
>> say: OK folks.. This year if you work a unique (however they define it)
>> then you lose the QSO. Let the computers do their thing, spit out the
>
>I guess the key phrase is "however they define it". I'd hate to think that
>when I work a non-contesting friend, and I am his only QSO, that that Q is
>summarily thrown out. Give me a break.
No, no, no... A contesting friend shouldn't JUST WORK YOU!
The guy with the most friends wins. What a lousy concept.
73
>From Pete Smith <n4zr@ix.netcom.com> Fri Sep 22 02:25:43 1995
From: Pete Smith <n4zr@ix.netcom.com> (Pete Smith)
Subject: Participation in CW Sprints
Message-ID: <199509220125.SAA12732@ix.ix.netcom.com>
At 10:31 AM 9/20/95 -0500, WB9TIY wrote:
>Excepting one notable flamer, the private response to my admittedly
>flame-prone message regarding participation in CW Sprints has been high.
>The private responses are running ALMOST 100% in agreement with what I
>originally posted. THEY don't do CW Sprint because THEY can't keep up
>with what THEY consider the high average sending speed combined with the
>difficult exchange and rules. Period.
>
(stuff deleted)
Reading this thread, I'm inclined to agree that sprints aren't the place to
start developing CW skills. You really need to go 30 wpm to fit in.
But boyohboy, if you want to get your feet wet at any speed, come on out on
Sunday during CW SS, earn a pin and see how willing everyone is to slow down
and work with you for the sake of a fresh QSO.
73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr@ix.netcom.com *** please note new address ***
>From Pete Smith <n4zr@ix.netcom.com> Fri Sep 22 01:44:37 1995
From: Pete Smith <n4zr@ix.netcom.com> (Pete Smith)
Subject: simple low-band contest antennas
Message-ID: <199509220044.RAA09915@ix.ix.netcom.com>
Time's running out before the major contests. With any luck, my tribander
will go up on top of the 100-foot tower October 1, but it looks as if I'll
be going with simple 40 and 80-meter antennas, at least for this year.
I'm schizophrenic between DX and domestic contests. Also, I have had good
experience with full-wave loops. With that in mind, I'm inclined to try a
slightly squashed delta loop on 80, per ON4UN's book design (p. 10-7) with a
square loop inside it, in the same plane, for 40, separately fed through
75-ohm matching sections. My question has to do with where to feed them.
ON4UN seems to endorse feeding 1/4 wave from the apex, for vertical
polarization, but says that good low-angle results are very dependent on
groyund quality, which is suspect here (lots of rocky limestone-filled
ridges in the fresnel zone). Several local old hands say to feed at the
middle of the bottom for horizontal polarization and ground-independence,
but both ON4UN and ELNEC suggest that the resulting pattern will have lots
of high angle but neglect the lower.
The bottom side of the 80-meter delta will be about 20-25 feet above ground.
The bottom of the 40-meter square loop will be another 15 feet higher.
Advice? Please reply directly by e-mail and if desired I'll summarize.
73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr@ix.netcom.com *** please note new address ***
|