Can anyone help with an e-mail adress of an antique radio
reflector...am in need of a manual for a National NCX-3.....tnx
Randy N1KWF >>
>From Albert Crespo <wr6r@ccnet.com> Sat Nov 11 01:37:09 1995
From: Albert Crespo <wr6r@ccnet.com> (Albert Crespo)
Subject: WR6R/KH6 1995 cqww phone
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951110172415.6241A-100000@ccnet3>
CALL: WR6R/KH6 COUNTRY: HAWAII
MODE: SSB CATEGORY: SINGLE OP
BAND QSO QSO PTS PTS/QSO ZONES COUNTIRES
160 78 222 2.85 9 8
80 166 469 2.83 15 21
40 818 2358 2.88 29 57
20 585 1715 2.93 31 64
15 2010 5928 2.95 30 66
10 152 437 2.88 16 21
___________________________________________
TOTALS 3809 11129 2.92 130 237= 4,084,343
EQUIPMENT: FT-1000D,FT-1000MP,NT-800,AL1500
ANTENNAS: 160-SHUNT TOWER, 80-LOOP, 40- 3 AND 2 EL YAGIS, 20- 5 AND 4 EL
YAGIS, 15- TWO 5 EL YAGIS, 10- 6 AND 5 EL YAGIS.
COMMENTS: HAD MORE QSO'S ON 160 BY SATURDAY MORNING THEN ON 80! COULD NOT
GET ANY RUNS ON 80 TO SPEAK OF. NO FAILURES WITH ANY OF THE
TOWER/ANTENNAS THANKS TO MY BUDDY, RON, AH6AZ!
MOST OF ALL, THANKS TO ALL THE GUYS WHO GIVE ME A CALL TO HELP
OUT MY EFFORT.
ONLY WORKED EA AND OH ON 15 METERS, MAYBE NEXT YEAR WE WILL GET
TO WORK EUROPE ON THESE BANDS.
ALOHA, AL
>From Troy Majors <wi0r@southwind.net> Sat Nov 11 01:58:41 1995
From: Troy Majors <wi0r@southwind.net> (Troy Majors)
Subject: QSLS DETER CONTEST Oÿÿÿÿÿ
Message-ID: <199511110158.TAA06675@onyx.southwind.net>
As an active WAS chaser on most bands the past few years,
my observations about current stateside qsling practices
among contesters (CW contesters) is this:
1) The old practice of sending a qsl card without any
cover with just a stamp afixed will normally not get you
a response from anyone but a few of us Old F*s who remember
"the good ole days."
2) The same goes for a qsl card inside an envelope without
an SASE.
3) A qsl card inside an envelope with an SASE will normally
(but not always) get you a return qsl card.
4) The overall return rate for contesters (at least for CW
contesters, as I can't speak for the SSB or other mode contesters)
is better than you would expect -- between 85% and 95%. That's
about as good as it was in the "good ole days." I have absolutely no
complaints!
5) There are many reasons why a qsl card is not returned,
many having to do with correct mailing addresses, and they may
have nothing to do with the qsling practices of the contester.
I now use the server at ualr to try to get the most current address,
but in spite of your best efforts a few will be returned by the
post office as undeliverable.
6) One qsl card sent out for a needed state on one band
will oftentimes but not always be enough to ensure a response.
Four to six (for four to six different qso's) are sometimes required.
Six has never failed me. Four has!
7) Only a few qsl cards will be returned within ten days
(usually from us Old F*s) but some will take as long as 18
months. Many contesters work for a living and answer qsl cards
only on days when they have a little spare time, which may be
once a year or longer.
There was an article on this subject in QST a few years ago.
Troy, wi0r
* RM 1.3 * Eval Day 29 * RoboMail -- Version 1.3 -- Available now!
>From w6sx@ptw.com (Hank Garretson) (by way of w6sx@ptw.com (Hank Garretson))
>Sat Nov 11 02:24:46 1995
From: w6sx@ptw.com (Hank Garretson) (by way of w6sx@ptw.com (Hank Garretson))
(Hank Garretson by way of w6sx@ptw.com Hank Garretson
)
Subject: Boring CW SS
Message-ID: <199511110224.SAA04345@gargamel.ptw.com>
>> We used to do that, four times a year.
>> It was called the CD Party.
>>
>> 73, K1TN (whom I believe to have made
>> 100K points in more CW CD Parties
>> than anyone else. Anybody care to check?)
>
>Well Jim you may hold that position of high honor, I don't think
>anyone is going to check. If you had asked me to guess, I might have
>said k2eiu or wa2uoo (aka n6ro and w2gd), or maybe wa9aum (gee,
>whatever happened to him?).
>
>73,
>Ed WA2SRQ (ORS NNJ)
>
>
Don' forget K2KIR aka W2JJ aka K1WJD plus some efforts at W1MX when he was
an undergraduate at at MIT. I believe Bud has the longest string of
consecutive CD-Party first-place finishes. Of course Bud didn't do Phone CD
Parties.
73,
Hank W6SX
>From Pete Smith <n4zr@ix.netcom.com> Sat Nov 11 02:57:16 1995
From: Pete Smith <n4zr@ix.netcom.com> (Pete Smith)
Subject: QSLs Deter Contest Operation
Message-ID: <199511110257.SAA11280@ix.ix.netcom.com>
At 08:44 AM 11/10/95 -0600, you wrote:
>Dick N6AA sez:
>>>The recent posts on SS QSLing bring to mind several thoughts.
>
>>>Seems the guys with interest in operating in contests don't have
>>>equal enthusiasm for answering QSLs afterward.
>
>
>I'll second that!!!! There are some CONTESTERS on this reflector who
>seem to dislike answering QSL requests... even when I include an SASE!
>
>Bob ki5ez
>
Dick's message raised an even more serious problem, though, which was the
thought that QSL needs might deter contesters in developing countries from
even participating. If we expect to keep our hobby alive and well, we need
to make sure that some of the emerging multitudes in China, Thailand,
Indonesia, India and elsewhere make contests a regular part of their diets.
Isn't it time to revisit an old topic? Back in the 1960s and 1970s, you
could get credit for contest QSOs if your log was submitted to the award
sponsors. Now, with so many logs submitted in computer-readable form, and
so much of the log-checking done by computer, perhaps it is again feasible
to do this. What would it take for the ARRL to be able to offer DXCC credit
for any QSOs that appear in logs it receives for the ARRL Dx Contests? Or
CQ for WAZ credit against CQWW logs? Maybe only if both parties submitted
computer-readable logs? Could such a program be supported by contributions
from contesters who would like to be freed from the burden of mail QSLing?
How would such a program be administered? Surely this isn't beyond our
collective ability to figure out?
73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr@ix.netcom.com
|