John W0UN writes:
>And there are many other scenarios for unique call signs to appear in a
log
>that are perfectly valid QSOs. I want someone operating my station to
make
What about the guy that asks if you can slide down a kHz and agree only if
he gives you the exchange info?
And of course, the satisfaction of tricking one of the frequency cops from
the Good ol' Boy, Redneck, Gay Potato/Pig Farmer Rockbound Frequency Net
wouldn't be there if the QSO didn't count.
I agree with John that a QSO shouldn't be removed just because it is
unique. If 50% were unique that would be an eye opener.
Earl
kz8e@bangate.compaq.com
>From Ruthie Cunliffe <ruthie@frontiernet.net> Mon Jan 22 19:08:43 1996
From: Ruthie Cunliffe <ruthie@frontiernet.net> (Ruthie Cunliffe)
Subject: ARRL VHF SS
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960122190843.00683150@pop.frontiernet.net>
I see that a few others are posting their scores for this
contest....soooo..here goes:
I put in about 9 hours. My main reasons for operating were: 1) FUN 2) help
with club score 3) Local club competition 4) YL competition within local
club
Callsign: AA2IO Section: WNY Grid: FN13
MHZ QSOs QSO points MULTS (grids) SCORE
50 30 30 8 240
144 138 138 21 2898
222 21 42 8 336
432 36 72 6 432
903 9 36 3 108
1296 5 20 2 40
TOTAL 239 338 48 16224
I learned to play musical chairs here in the shack with the OM, N2NEP, and
musical xverters/rotors/microphones! All in all in was fun. We lost 1296
late Saturday night (cable on antenna). The bands were rather flat. There
was a quite a bit of activity locally, as usual, which always helps to make
it fun. I enjoyed having capabilities on all the bands and I have to thank
my OM for all his technical expertise and hard work which help make the
xverters and antennas in this QTH hum!
73 de Ruthie, AA2IO
Ruthie Cunliffe AA2IO http://www.frontiernet.net/~ruthie
ruthie@frontiernet.net fax#: 716-359-9368
>From mraz@rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com (Kris I. Mraz) Mon Jan 22 19:21:57 1996
From: mraz@rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com (Kris I. Mraz) (Kris I. Mraz)
Subject: G3SJX IC775/FT1000MP Review
Message-ID: <9601221921.AA05281@maverick.aud.alcatel.com>
Dave G4BUO said:
> I know there has been interest on the contest reflector in the review
of these rigs ...
The TS-870 review in the February 1996 QST addresses the problems that
some on this reflector have noted regarding distortion in the presence of
strong nearby signals. See the box titled "DSP in the Kenwood TS-870S"
by Jon Bloom, KE3Z, on page 75.
73
Kris AA5UO
mraz@aud.alcatel.com
>From sellington" <sellington@mail.ssec.wisc.edu Mon Jan 22 18:39:48 1996
From: sellington" <sellington@mail.ssec.wisc.edu (sellington)
Subject: G3SJX IC775/FT1000MP Review
Message-ID: <n1389803388.21407@mail.ssec.wisc.edu>
>The TS-870 review in the February 1996 QST addresses the problems that
>some on this reflector have noted regarding distortion in the presence of
>strong nearby signals. See the box titled "DSP in the Kenwood TS-870S"
>by Jon Bloom, KE3Z, on page 75.
>73
>Kris AA5UO
>mraz@aud.alcatel.com
It wasn't nearly as bad as I expected, though, because the IF shift
is used to narrow the passband for CW operation. (For some reason,
that never occurred to me.)
73,
Scott K9MA
>From jbmitch@vt.edu (JOHN MITCHELL) Sun Jan 21 20:49:13 1996
From: jbmitch@vt.edu (JOHN MITCHELL) (JOHN MITCHELL)
Subject: G3SJX IC775/FT1000MP Review
Message-ID: <199601222050.PAA15646@sable.cc.vt.edu>
>Dave G4BUO said:
>> I know there has been interest on the contest reflector in the review
>of these rigs ...
>
>The TS-870 review in the February 1996 QST addresses the problems that
>some on this reflector have noted regarding distortion in the presence of
>strong nearby signals. See the box titled "DSP in the Kenwood TS-870S"
>by Jon Bloom, KE3Z, on page 75.
>73
>Kris AA5UO
>mraz@aud.alcatel.com
I've been using an 870 since October, including during several major contests.
I have yet to experience ANY nearby large signal distortion within any
digital passband I select (CW or SSB).
Has anyone else noticed "no problem" with the 870 in this regard?
( I do note the QST review failed to uncover some fairly serious nits, such
as the reverb effect while monitoring tx audio in vox operations, the fairly
useless auto-notch filter, etc. It's still the best receiver I've used...)
73, WD4MUR John
>From k3ww@fast.net (Charles Fulp) Mon Jan 22 21:19:58 1996
From: k3ww@fast.net (Charles Fulp) (Charles Fulp)
Subject: 160 M Log Checking
Message-ID: <199601222121.QAA27506@nn.fast.net>
A few thoughts on log checking...
I too was a bit surprised that all of N4IN's log checking techniques, seem
to have remained in effect. When I heard Don speak on how he did the logs,
it was very interesting, and certainly different from what most log checkers
appeared to be doing at the time. He apparently typed all the logs into his
computer, and reconstructed as much of the contest as possible. Giving
credit for contacts with broken calls, but information that the attempt had
been made, was certainly generous, and apparently based on his view of what
the objective of the 160 contest was. Throwing out possibly unverifiable
and unlikely contacts also seems out of the norm, but was again in keeping
with his views of the contest. I believe that in CQ magazine contests, the
individual Contest administrators or committees are pretty much, fully
responsible for their own events (I may be wrong on this).
I will agree with the majority that if contacts are eliminated just because
the log checker thinks they were unlikely, or impossible, then the situation
should be reviewed. On the other hand I was under the impression that even
in the CQWW, contacts which were unique and with calls not verifiable (say a
prefix known not to have been issued by a given country, or a W that is not
in the FCC Database) were removed from our logs.
I know of cases where the ARRL has contacted stations to verify contacts
that have appeared in certain logs. Ultimately in cases of unusual uniques
(especially multiple occurrences), attempting to verify the contact would be
most appropriate. If a unique QSO is with a station that cannot be reached
(not in any databases, no QSL info etc), then it might be appropriate to
remove this contact from a log.
If we get back to the philosophy of working people who are at least on the
band for a few contacts, perhaps a rule requiring any call to appear in at
least X number of logs say 2 or 3 or 20; whatever, would be appropriate.
This would penalize the folks that make scheds, have rare and exotic
friends, or who are clever enough to hear a rare station calling CQ fone
patch, make a contest QSO, and have the rare guy realize he doesn't want to
be in a contest and pulls the plug. Depending on your philosophical
position any of those could be the low or high point of a contest weekend.
73 de Chas (Charlie on SSB)
|