The 1996 Texas QSO Party is around the corner. Here are the new rules for
1996. Please pass these on to
interested parties. tnx 73
Contest: TEXAS QSO Party
Time: 04/1400Z-05/2200Z
Classes:
Single op, Multi-single and Texas Armadillo Expedition
Mixed Mode Only
Exchange:
Send QSO# and Texas County or State/Canadian Province
Rules:
Texas stations work everyone. Others work Texas only.
Only one transmitted signal at a time. CW QSOS must be made in CW
subbands, except on 160. Work stations once per band/mode for QSO
points, work Texas Armadillo stations again on same band or mode as
they change counties for multiplier credit only. Mults count only
once regardless of band or mode.
CW - 1.805 and 40 khz up
Phone - 1.850, 3.850, 7.230, 14.250, 21.300, 28.450.
Scoring:
Score 2 pts/QSO on phone and 3 pts/QSO on CW. Final score is QSO
points x Texas Counties (max 254). Texas stations multiply by
states, Canadian Provinces and Texas Counties. DX counts for QSO
points only.
Awards:
Texas Wine Baskets and plaques to top class finishers.
Special awards to Texas Clubs with most logs submitted.
Special awards to multi-single and Texas Armadillo Expedition with the
most Novice/Tech operators( list them with a /T or /N in your list of
operators on summary sheet).
Work 50 or more Texas Counties for Special Commemorative Cap.
Work all 254 Texas Counties for free air fare to the 1996 Houston Ham
Convention!
Send logs and summary sheet via mail, disk or E-mail within 30 days.
Texas DX Society POB 540291 Houston, Texas 77254
E-mail: KB5YVT@AOL.COM
Results will be posted on the Internet Contest Reflector or sent with
a SASE or via E-mail.
>From David Robbins <ky1h@berkshire.net> Mon Apr 22 10:55:04 1996
From: David Robbins <ky1h@berkshire.net> (David Robbins)
Subject: internet stuff...mute?
References: <199604211559.PAA15517@mailhost.worldnet.att.net>
Message-ID: <317B5778.17CD@berkshire.net>
Douglas Zwiebel wrote:
>
> Don't forget that (for the CQWW contests) you are NOT permitted to use
> packet (internet?), spotting nets, 2 meter links, etc. to SOLICIT qso's.
remember, this rule is under single-assisted only... us multi-ops can
seem to go anywhere and spot ourselves.
> If you want to SPOT something, you
> do it on your own (gee, this was a good one, I'll post it). In other
> words, you CAN'T ask for a qso (directly, indirectly, subtly, overtly,
> hint-hint, or whatever).
> You can't spot yourself either.
how passive is passive? sending any kind of spot is announcing that you
are in the contest and available for qso. a spot like 'dx 14240 9g1bs called
me'
is a pretty good way to let others know that 9g1bs is on the band and
answering cq's... its also a good way to spot yourself. for several years
during the wpx contests we have paid active attention not to the spotted
calls, but to the spotters. by sunday we've worked most of the stations
being spotted, but still need lots of the 2x1's that do the spotting, so
when someone spots something they are liable to get a talk from us asking
for a qso. now granted wpx is a different contest from cqww dx, and from
the cq 160m test, but the concept is the same.
i am usually against changing rules so that contests look more like each
other. i prefer that cq and arrl tests have different flavors and would
like to keep it that way. but this may be a case where it would be good
for some common ground. i can just see it now, if there isn't a common
agreement on use of clusters during contests you will end up with a
whole set of different allowed cluster connection schemes based on each
contest... in contest a cluster x can't connect to cluster y because y can
only be reached via internet, but it can connect to z over 10 mhz. in
contest b cluster x can connect to y but not to z because 10mhz isn't a
contest band. i contest c cluster x can connect to both y and z but no
one can spot themselves or their friends.... etc, etc, etc... not to even
mention the on-going disputes about ssb spots during cw tests, rtty spots
during ssb tests. and the competitive advantage some users see in keeping
spots limited to certain club areas during contests.
some day, probably not too far away, we will have to ability to connect
clusters together around the world. just yesterday the gate opened again
to europe to part of the yccc network, we got spots from italy in real
time (within a minute of the spot time). and they were actually useful.
this is not a topic that a rule here or a rule there will be able to
handle, there are too many options... for a few examples of things that
will come up:
1. if i use my internet computer and connect to italy, then plug it into
the aa1as cluster sitting here in the shack, can i use spots from it
because i am not directly connecting the logging computer to the internet?
2. but if i log on the same computer can i use them???
3. can i connect to a cluster node if i don't know the whole backbone
structure, would i get disqualified if it turns out later that the cluster
node i was on was connected to the internet?
4. if our rf backbone goes down due to ice storms can we go to backup
links via internet, or would that disqualify our users. what if this
switchover was automatic, how would we notify everyone. would some users
have to leave when we switch while others could stay?
5. would nodes run by dx'ers that didn't care about the contest but did
want to have their internet link get thrown off the rf network during some
contests?
technology is here, you can't legislate against it to stop it... the dam
is cracking and soon it will be too late to turn back the flood of
information that has already invaded the internet, so we had best plan
for it and be prepared. burying our heads in non-crystaline silicon
piles will not make it go away. enough dumb metaphors????
i hate to propose solutions, and i'm not even sure if there is one yet,
but we have to start coming up with a plan. and preferably a plan that
can be agreed to by the major contest sponsors so we don't have to try
to reconfigure packet every weekend... and so we don't get casual
contesters confused when they find out they have been reclassified multi-
multi because they made a spot on the wrong cluster one weekend.
73, dave
--
ky1h@berkshire.net or robbins@berkshire.net
http://www.berkshire.net/~robbins/ky1h.html
>From Douglas Zwiebel <KR2Q@worldnet.att.net> Mon Apr 22 14:26:46 1996
From: Douglas Zwiebel <KR2Q@worldnet.att.net> (Douglas Zwiebel)
Subject: a rose by any other name????
Message-ID: <199604221326.NAA18897@mailhost.worldnet.att.net>
Hmmmm. I think that biases about the use of packet radio IN GENERAL are
creeping into the "should internet links be allowed" discussion. I would
suggest THINKING ABOUT the SOA category not as "Single Op Assisted" but
as "single op-high tech." Maybe that will help? There is no sense trying
to compare single op to SOA...they are two different categories with two
different skill sets. The SOA category is blossoming into something special
that I (for one) did not foresee. Perhaps (emphasis here: PERHAPS) this
category can be the like the creation of the M/M category....a category that
was designed to push the skills and abilities and technology available during
the contest...except that SO-HT (hi tech) is for the single op only. A "new"
way to think about the category? Again...food for thought.
de Doug KR2Q@worldnet.att.net
>From Ralph Bowen <rbowen@computek.net> Mon Apr 22 15:06:20 1996
From: Ralph Bowen <rbowen@computek.net> (Ralph Bowen)
Subject: Contesting and the Internet?
Message-ID: <199604221406.JAA20931@ns1.computek.net>
There is a rather simple solution for all this mess.
Contest sponsors create two major categories:
1) The Pure Radio Category
2) The Unlimited Category
They do not compete with each other and essentially end up with two types of
participants.
"Pure Radio"
Like the "old days". Single-ops have no packet, spotting nets or spotting
ops, etc. Just sit in front of the radio & operate. Multi-ops can only use
spotting means which are NOT linked by phone lines, Internet, etc. This can
be spotting "voice" nets and local or regional packet cluster systems
connected by RF on amateur frequencies. (ed note: Seems like 7 MHz has
become a very popular place for this crap - just try finding a listening
frequency there!)
"Unlimited"
Essentially no rules other than compliance with the regulatory rules in your
country. Let technology grow and abound. If you can figure out the
technological edge to Kick Butt then go for it!!
Have Fun!!
73, Gator N5RZ rbowen@computek.net
>From Marijan Miletic <s56a@s55tcp.ampr.org> Mon Apr 22 19:07:36 1996
From: Marijan Miletic <s56a@s55tcp.ampr.org> (Marijan Miletic)
Subject: EU contest & Internet approach
Message-ID: <20696@s55tcp.ampr.org>
Hi USA! Please enjoy cheap telecomm as much as you can! Here in EU with all
the national borders (mults) and government run PTT the price of Internet
connections is ridiculously high which encourages conservative thinking about
it's use with amateur radio. While we are lucky to have packet radio to
Internet node S55TCP and one of the oldest EU DXC S50DXC and even receive WW
spots via Italy, we were forced to cut forwarding further north to certain DL
cluster under the threat of breaking common EU links. S52D, WU2D then wrote
filter program which stops all non-EU spots at our northern border. One of the
sad results is that DL WWV info is often obsolete by days...
Slovenia is a small country of 2M people only but we are just seting 1.2 Mbit/s
links between the main nodes with home TNC going from 19k2 to the same speeds.
We are well aware that such an "information super-highway" would need graphics
to be kept busy and there is no sense in preventing free flow of information.
Modern life and technology brings the overabundance of information and we must
pay more attention to the filters just like in our radios...
It is so nice to be finally part of a global vilage with Internet, CNN, celular
phones, faxes while living in the "village" of 250k inhabitants only...
73 & CU SF de Mario, S56A, N1YU.
>From Swanson, Glenn, KB1GW" <gswanson@arrl.org Mon Apr 22 16:06:00 1996
From: Swanson, Glenn, KB1GW" <gswanson@arrl.org (Swanson, Glenn, KB1GW)
Subject: Contesting and the Internet?
Message-ID: <317BA08D@arrl.org>
Joe, What you say is true--no one is suggesting that the Internet is taking
the place of radio in contests. But, would you allow the point that this
"lowers
the barrier" one notch? What's the next step: "We've had internet links for
years,
why don't those contacts count?" (If it's not the "next" step, then perhaps
there will
be several intermediate steps leading to it.) Just a bit of food for
thought...
Overall, Joe, I must disagree with your logic as stated below.
Radio is radio.
Not Internet + radio = radio.
I would submit that not all revolutions are overnight affairs--sometimes
things slowly evolve into incarnations--and the roots of the revolution can
sometimes be obscure by the time the revolution is complete. I'd tread
carefully when advocating a position that serves to take the radio out
of radio. KI3V said it best: " Lets invest in building better stations and
RF networks instead of investing in AT&T and your Local ISP....."
Radio is magic !!
The statement below * is * difficult to argue with.
(Even if it does imply that folks would "work around" contest rules.)
>"However, I think of guys like K4VX, WB0O, and other remote stations that
>don't have access to a local packet cluster. The internet access is an
>obvious solution for these guys to enjoy all of the spots that the rest of
>us enjoy. You prevent them from making direct connects and you further
>isolate them from the advantages the rest of us in urban areas enjoy. Or
>they simply have a friend nearby connect up to the internet directly and
>pipe the spots over. So why make a rule that is very simply worked
around?"
KR2Q said: " ...except that SO-HT (hi tech) is for the single op only.
A "new" way to think about the category?"
However, as someone pointed out, you might not even know your Cluster is
connected to the Internet... Could this be (must it be!) the answer?
Assisted = Packet + Internet assisted?
One helluva tread you started, Tom!
73, Glenn KB1GW
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
>Hello everyone!
>
> Put in my vote for allowing Internet clusters and links to be used
>during contests. <snip>
...Furthermore, I just don't see how this necessarily violates rules
>prohibiting the use of non-amateur communications to solicit QSO's/make
>contacts OR endangers radio contesting in general. Under current rules
>(ARRL at least), you couldn't send a "talk" request over the Internet to
>arrange a QSO or even spot yourself. You could only receive the spots and
>spot others.
>
> Second, no-one is suggesting supplanting radio contests with
>Internet-only contests. A great part of the fun is in setting up the
>antennas, the stations and making contacts on the air using radios. Until
>the day comes when the contest community stops enjoying those aspects of
>radio contesting, I don't think we have much to worry about from access to
>Internet clusters and links.
>
>
> 73,
> Joe, WI2E
>
jobrien@minerva.cis.yale.edu
>From Swanson, Glenn, KB1GW" <gswanson@arrl.org Mon Apr 22 16:27:00 1996
From: Swanson, Glenn, KB1GW" <gswanson@arrl.org (Swanson, Glenn, KB1GW)
Subject: Contest rules proposal... (Was Contesting and the Internet)...
Message-ID: <317BA5D8@arrl.org>
Well put, Ralph!
(Says it all for me!)
--> I second the motion--or is it emotion? ;-)
73, Glenn, KB1GW
----------
>From: Ralph Bowen
>To: cq-contest
>Subject: Re: Contesting and the Internet?
>
>Return-Path: <rbowen@computek.net>
>X-ListName: Amateur Radio Contester's discussion list <CQ-Contest@tgv.com>
>Warnings-To: <>
>Errors-To: owner-cq-contest@tgv.com
>Sender: owner-cq-contest@tgv.com
>Message-ID: <199604221406.JAA20931@ns1.computek.net>
>X-Sender: rbowen@computek.net
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>To: cq-contest@tgv.com
>From: Ralph Bowen <rbowen@computek.net>
>Reply-To: Ralph Bowen <rbowen@computek.net>
>Subject: Re: Contesting and the Internet?
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>There is a rather simple solution for all this mess.
>
>Contest sponsors create two major categories:
>
> 1) The Pure Radio Category
>
> 2) The Unlimited Category
>
>They do not compete with each other and essentially end up with two types
of
>participants.
>
>"Pure Radio"
>
> Like the "old days". Single-ops have no packet, spotting nets or
spotting
>ops, etc. Just sit in front of the radio & operate. Multi-ops can only
use
>spotting means which are NOT linked by phone lines, Internet, etc. This
can
>be spotting "voice" nets and local or regional packet cluster systems
>connected by RF on amateur frequencies. (ed note: Seems like 7 MHz has
>become a very popular place for this crap - just try finding a listening
>frequency there!)
>
>
>"Unlimited"
>
>Essentially no rules other than compliance with the regulatory rules in
your
>country. Let technology grow and abound. If you can figure out the
>technological edge to Kick Butt then go for it!!
>
>Have Fun!!
>
>73, Gator N5RZ rbowen@computek.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From Gary Nieborsky <k7fr@ncw.net> Mon Apr 22 17:27:23 1996
From: Gary Nieborsky <k7fr@ncw.net> (Gary Nieborsky)
Subject: Grounding
Message-ID: <199604221627.JAA12927@bing.ncw.net>
Hi all:
In response to all those that wanted info on ground measurement methods and
don't have the $3,000 for the AEMC 3700 gizmo , here is a source for some
excellent methodology and theory behind the Fall of Potential ground
measurement method:
Biddle Instruments
510 Township Line Road
Blue Bell PA 19422
1-215-646-9200 (answers as Able Industries)
1-800-366-5543 (same answer but does it in spanish too)
Ask for to speak to someone about Manual 25T, Getting Down To Earth.
Generally it's $1 but sometimes they give them out for free.
Another source is your local power company. Most everyone in the substation
design area sleeps with one (my YL was really wondering what she'd married
when she found this and the IEEE Green Book under the bed instead of other
leading men's magazines like QST and CQ).
Usual Disclaimer......
73 Gary K7FR
Antenna Farms
"I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from the top of my
tower."
>From ocker@chasind.com (Charlie Ocker) Mon Apr 22 17:27:13 1996
From: ocker@chasind.com (Charlie Ocker) (Charlie Ocker)
Subject: Elevated Guywire Anchor Posts
Message-ID: <199604221627.LAA23771@elvis.chasind.com>
Greetings,
I am in planning stage of next phase of tower project. It will be 73' of 45g,
guyed in 2 places per Rohn specs. I'd like to bring guywires to elevated posts.
Thinking 3 or 4 feet above ground. I have access to some fairly good size
steel posts (4 to 5 inches diamter, hefty wall) but do not know specs of the
material, as it is surplus.
Would appreciate any hints, kinks, pros/cons, etc. Will make a summary avail-
able for those interested.
73,
Charlie KD5PJ/9 ocker@chasind.com
>From ks9o@pyrotechnics.com (KEVIN MILHORN) Mon Apr 22 17:58:53 1996
From: ks9o@pyrotechnics.com (KEVIN MILHORN) (KEVIN MILHORN)
Subject: CONTESTING AND THE INTERNET
Message-ID: <199604221658.LAA06716@kiwi.pyrotechnics.com>
Didn't we have this same discussion when we started using packet clusters
and even before that using computers for logging. What difference does it
make where the spotting info comes from. When you get outside spotting you
are still considered multi-op or single assisted. Technology moves on and so
should we.
73,
KEVIN MILHORN KS9O
KS9O@PYROTECHNICS.COM
>From n2ic@drmail.dr.att.com (LondonSM) Mon Apr 22 17:22:14 1996
From: n2ic@drmail.dr.att.com (LondonSM) (LondonSM)
Subject: Contesting and the Internet?
References: <199604221406.JAA20931@ns1.computek.net>
Message-ID: <9604221022.ZM19819@dr.att.com>
On Apr 22, 9:06am, Ralph Bowen wrote:
> There is a rather simple solution for all this mess.
>
> Contest sponsors create two major categories:
>
> 1) The Pure Radio Category
>
> 2) The Unlimited Category
>
> They do not compete with each other and essentially end up with two types of
> participants.
>
> "Pure Radio"
>
> Like the "old days". Single-ops have no packet, spotting nets or spotting
> ops, etc. Just sit in front of the radio & operate. Multi-ops can only use
> spotting means which are NOT linked by phone lines, Internet, etc. This can
> be spotting "voice" nets and local or regional packet cluster systems
> connected by RF on amateur frequencies. (ed note: Seems like 7 MHz has
> become a very popular place for this crap - just try finding a listening
> frequency there!)
An interesting idea, but I would take it a step further. Absolutely no "off
site" assistance. Multi's would have to find their own spots, using receivers
and antennas located on-premises, without packet, voice, telephone, or internet
assistance.
> 73, Gator N5RZ rbowen@computek.net
>
As a frequent multi-op entrant, located in a packet-challenged area, I have
recently been forced to think long and hard about internet packet spot access.
>From my perspective, it's really a shame that the emergence of internet has led
to the near-demise of the 10135 kHz backbone.
I have nothing new to add to the discussion. I agree 100% with KM9P, K5NA and
K0LUZ.
Thanks to KY1H for his examples showing what a joke the current rules are ! I
hope KR1R and K3EST are paying attention !
Maybe I should just stick to single-op/unassisted !
Steve
n2ic@dr.att.com
>From Jim Reid <jreid@aloha.net> Mon Apr 22 19:07:10 1996
From: Jim Reid <jreid@aloha.net> (Jim Reid)
Subject: W6GO Cluster on Internet
Message-ID: <1.5.4b12.32.19960422180710.006fcd64@aloha.net>
>> Interesting topic, but I suspect there is a fair amount of "if we
>> have them spotted, why share them with you?" attitude, tho
>> would hope this is not the case.
>>
>> 73, Jim, AH6NB, jreid@aloha.net
>>
>Jim,
> You really should get your facts correct before you flame someone on a
>reflector.
> 73, Jay
> w6go@netcom.com
Jay,
I had no intention of "flaming"; in fact my comment in the last line
was aimed at the thread topic, certainly not you guys! That would be
silly of me, since it is you people I am trying to befriend so as
to get your spots out here where we are spot poor. I am truly sorry
if my post seemed to be directed at you or your committee. The comment
I made about sharing spots had entirely to do with comments being made
between some of the East Coast Contesting club people. I thought I had
made that clear when I was commenting about the topic being of interest.
Anyway, would still be nice to know what DX you guys are hearing
around SF, am pretty sure we could work it out here, maybe.
Really do apologize for being offensive, was not my intent at all!
73, Jim, AH6NB
>From Gary Nieborsky <k7fr@ncw.net> Mon Apr 22 19:09:01 1996
From: Gary Nieborsky <k7fr@ncw.net> (Gary Nieborsky)
Subject: internet and spots
Message-ID: <199604221809.LAA19526@bing.ncw.net>
Got to admit that using Internet spots would allow the tracking of who's
really SOA (SO-HT) vs. those just monitoring. Of course this wouldn't
preclude using the kids or work account for cheating....
Could institute a new club competitiion for Internet spots. Instead of
Circles we could have classifications based on Hubs and Routers. The
Unlimited Class would be reserved for those groups that use at least 20 of
24 T1 channels.
Seriously......unless you are attached to a propagationally similar spotting
network the data you get will be absolutely worthless if you can't hear
them. Think we are getting away contesting as a skill and going to
contesting as apliance purchases.......
73 Gary K7FR
Antenna Farms
"I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from the top of my
tower."
>From wx0b@gte.net (Jay Terleski) Mon Apr 22 20:37:19 1996
From: wx0b@gte.net (Jay Terleski) (Jay Terleski)
Subject: Contesters design tool-or something interesting on a plane the other
day
Message-ID: <v01530501ada18bc132aa@[206.124.69.83]>
I was on another plane last week and happened to be sitting across the
aisle from a guy who was doing some circuit desings on his laptop. Since
it looked like RF design stuff I struck up a conversation with the guy.
Turns out hes a ham and works as a designer for a power supply company. He
was working on a switcher design.
I told him that I had just spent some time putting together a hybrid
coupler phasing system for 160 and sure would like to have a tool like that
to help me get it working. I had to do all the calcs by hand and of course
make real measurments with a scope. (As we all should).
He said that the software he had could do the job easily and best of all
ITS almost FREE. What. So if you want to flame me go ahead at this time.
I'll dump it like I do most of the stuff on this reflector.....back to the
deal.
We put it test with my hybrid coupler design. We built it on his
screen...easy! We swept it for phase, current and voltage over a range of
frequencies, and optimized it. Looked at plots of all the data anywhere I
wanted to, This software really works as well it should its P-SPICE ver 6
I think.
I think it will help me save alot of time on several projects I have in
mind. And it will probably help most of us contesters match antennas,
create that input circuit for your next amp project, and analyze your Rf
circuitry.
Here is how you get it. Go to your local engineering college bookstore and
pick up the Student version of P-SPICE it cost this guy $10.00 the manual
is another $10.00. As far as I can tell it will do everything the ARRL
wants to sell us for $150.00. Maybe someone who knows can add to this, but
this is the first time I have seen anything like this on the reflector.
I hope this helps some contester.
Jay WX0B
|