Hi All,
After having played in the ARRL DX test for years under the current rules,
it is good news to hear that there may be a change in this ancient and
outdated situation. One has only to have played in a serious m/s once to
know the agony involved in the current rule..especially at or near the bottom
of a sunspot cycle.
Agony can be defined as having QSY'ed to 160m during the SSB weekend to
quickly work two mults only to be stuck with 8-9 minutes of clock to kill.
Usually this is filled by CQing into a empty band. Our m/s team (K8AZ)
usually has agreed prior to the contest on certain QSY "rules". One of them
is that at certain times during the weekend if "X" number of multipliers
shows up on a band, we go. It is no fun, but we go.
I think the proposed rule change would allow current technology to be
utilized, while injecting a new element of strategy into a m/s operation. It
may take a while for operators to think in terms of "band changes"/time on a
band vs. time on a band. Once this adjustment is made there will be fewer
"agony" bandchanges and more "fun". Of course operating a phone contest from
Ohio on 75 or 160 offers a preverted idea of "fun".
73, Ron K8NZ
>From ve7sbo@teleport.com (Bill Rindone) Fri Aug 2 20:18:57 1996
From: ve7sbo@teleport.com (Bill Rindone) (Bill Rindone)
Subject: 160 Rule Summary
Message-ID: <199608021918.MAA20665@desiree.teleport.com>
Just thought you would like to see an early summary as to the thoughts
regarding the proposed 160 ARRL Rule Change.
First a few observations:
1. No comments received from W1, W2 or W4 land. All other areas were
represented.
2. The ratio of For the rule change = 20%
3. Against the Rule change 80%
4. The names of the innocent (and guilty) have been with held. Just a
geographical breakdown by area.
5. Furthest east was W3. That comment follows:
COMMENTS RECEIVED
W/K3: I get so tired of complaining about how unfair and how put upon many
W6 and W7 stations are when it comes to DX. Come on, cant take the heat
turn off the rig and go watch the TV.
W/K8: I think Bill's comments make good sense. The Mississippi river is not
the dividing line, it extends as far east as the Atlanta area.
If such a rule is applied, then perhaps the multiplier for more than one
country on a continent can be eliminated. Europe would be one mult, and the
rest would be regular DX QSO points.
W/K6: The East (... coast) guys just don't have a clue as to what it takes
from out here to even operate 160! Apparently they think we have this huge
resource of hundreds of VK/ZL/JAs to work! Were it only true!!!!!
W/K5 Yup. My first thought, exactly! (TEXAS, west of the Mississippi!)
W/K9: Bill...same goes for the MIDWEST...the proposed RULE CHANGES both for
160 contest and ARRL 10minute rule are typical of "EAST COAST"
attitudes!!! Think I'll just QUIT CONTESTING!!!! Tired of the BS!
W/K5: Just in case anyone's counting votes, I like the ARRL
160 contest rules the way they are. I think it's more FUN that way.
W/K0: My position on adding tx power to the ARRL 160 exchange is to go the
opposite way...take out everything except 599. 160 is such a challenging
band, just getting the call is usually pretty difficult. Why add
information and make it impossible for us second- and third-layer guys to
work DX stations? It would certainly require that the top guys improve
some, but it would be a Royal Pain in the Keister for the non-titans.
W/K7: Or make the exchange in both directions be call + grid square. Then the
only multiplier (applied to every contact) is the great circle distance
between the grid square centers normalized to the largest possible distance
between antipodes.
W/K9: First of all, I believe that the ARRL has stated that the ARRL 160
contest is not intended to be a DX type of contest. I believe it has been
stated that it is supposed to be a 160 SS of sorts. In my estimation if you
can't copy a number in an exchange, you probably dont deserve to work the
guy any way. In this age of SUPER-CHECK-PARTIAL and ALT-F3 (GRAB A SPOT),
this rule sure seems to be something that makes sense.
>From tonyjw@primenet.com (Tony Wanschura) Fri Aug 2 21:19:40 1996
From: tonyjw@primenet.com (Tony Wanschura) (Tony Wanschura)
Subject: Overturning force, rohn 45G?
Message-ID: <320262DC.57E5@primenet.com>
There was some discussion a while back about overturning force
(moment?) for Rohn 25G tower. If I remember correctly, it was around
5500 foot-lbs. Can anyone tell me the figure for Rohn 45G? I have an
old spec sheet for 45G, but not being a structural engineer (or any
kind of engineer, for that matter) I just don't know what all those
numbers mean.
For background, my tower is 40 feet of 55G topped by 20 feet of 45G
(60 feet total at present). The conversion from 45 to 55 is a 20-foot
long conversion section (one piece, manufactured that way; heavy).
The tower is guyed at 29 and 51 feet (small lot). I want to add a
section of 45 at the top to give a total height of 70 feet, and I need
to figure out how much antenna I can put above that top (51') guy
point. I know how to figure the overturning force of a given antenna
at a given height above the guy point. What I need to know is what
the tower will allow.
Thanks,
Tony KM0O kayMOO
"One of the Minnesota bovine contesters, along with AC0W"
>From Gus.Widell@ccgate1.exu.ericsson.se (Gus Widell) Fri Aug 2 18:45:09 1996
From: Gus.Widell@ccgate1.exu.ericsson.se (Gus Widell) (Gus Widell)
Subject: SM3SGP/W4 Jacksonville
Message-ID: <9607028390.AA839017639@ccgate1.exu.ericsson.se>
Hi,
I am now in Jacksonville Florida. Will be here for about 3 months.
Hope to meet some contesters in the area. Also interested in Multi op.
73 de Gus, SM3SGP
erac.sm3sgp@memo.ericsson.se
>From rickdav@pcix.com (Rick Davenport) Fri Aug 2 22:45:20 1996
From: rickdav@pcix.com (Rick Davenport) (Rick Davenport)
Subject: Dunestar bandpass filters and coaxial stubs
Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19960802182455.196f6da8@pcix.com>
I am wondering if anyone out there in radioland has tried using coaxial
stubs along with the Dunestar bandpass filters to further reduce intermod.
If so, what were your results ?
73 es Tnx
Rick/KI1G
rickdav@pcix.com
>From kj4vh@iglou.com (Tim Totten, KJ4VH) Fri Aug 2 23:04:11 1996
From: kj4vh@iglou.com (Tim Totten, KJ4VH) (Tim Totten, KJ4VH)
Subject: New FCC RF exposure rules
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.93.960802172511.1524A-100000@iglou>
As I warned y'all a few weeks ago, the FCC has now issued their new rules
on RF exposure limits. They were required to make a final ruling in this
matter per the Telecom Act of 1996.
I've just been flipping through my copy (100+ pages), and at first blush,
it seems things came out somewhat close to what I expected. It could
certainly have been worse--this is not the end of the world or anything so
dramatic--but the new rules will clearly have an impact on practically all
CONTESTERS in the U.S. (except maybe you QRPp-only types).
Amateurs were NOT EXEMPTED from the new rules, although if you only run 50
Watts or less, you are basically presumed to be in compliance. The rest
of us will be required to "perform a routine evaluation to predict if the
RF radiation could be in excess of that allowed."
Fortunately, amateurs and members of their immediate household are
considered to be in a controlled environment, and thus the less-stringent
"occupational/controlled" limits will apply. But your neighbors are
considered part of the general public, thus you must meet the tighter
"uncontrolled" limits for them.
I haven't read enough of the details yet, nor done any calculations to see
just how often CONTESTERS might be expected to exceed the limits. Even if
it's a very rare occurence, it seems like the burden of proof has been put
on us. I can certainly envision more opportunities for our less-friendly
neighbors to make life difficult for us.
Pse don't swamp me with a bunch of questions at this point. I don't know
much more abt this yet than what I said above. I'm sure more details will
be forthcoming soon. For a copy of the FCC news release, with links to a
complete copy of the R&O (all 100+ pages), check out the following URL:
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/headline/fcc96326.html
It looks like N2AA might have to add a footnote to his "LOUD IS COOL"
tee-shirt--maybe something like, "except where prohibitted by law?"
See y'all in NAQP this wknd (with 100 Watts and a "low RF emission"
all-band vertical).
73,
Tim Totten, KJ4VH - kj4vh@iglou.com
(also kj4vh@contesting.com)
http://www.iglou.com/kj4vh/
>From kc4zv@iquest.com (Greg Richard KC4ZV) Fri Aug 2 23:38:26 1996
From: kc4zv@iquest.com (Greg Richard KC4ZV) (Greg Richard KC4ZV)
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.93.960802173635.3492B-100000@vespucci.iquest.com>
Here is a list of Team Alabama for NAQP
Team Alabama #1
N4YOS
N4KG
AD4Y
K4JYO
KC4ZV
Team Alabama #2
KA9EKJ
KC4TIX
Hope to cu on all bands....
Greg KC4ZV "ED"
>From k8mr@barf80.nshore.org (Jim Stahl) Fri Aug 2 22:51:01 1996
From: k8mr@barf80.nshore.org (Jim Stahl) (Jim Stahl)
Subject: CAC/10 minute rule
Message-ID: <qVZ2RD1w165w@barf80.nshore.org>
It's overdue that the CAC is considering dropping the 10 minute
multi-single rule. This rule was put in place years ago to keep
M/S from turning into multi-multi with an octopus. But in the
meantime there have been major changes in the operating
techniques of everyone brought about by no tune radios and
packet spotting. Limiting band changes per hour is a much better
way to achieve the goal of keeping M/S really a single
transmitter category.
Setting the limit at six changes per hour is unrealistically low.
I suggest that the number be set at 12 to 20 per hour, which
allows one band change every 5 to 3 minutes, or one change to a
different band with a return, every 10 to 6 minutes. These are
not the numbers of a hyperactive two radio operator.
To confirm the validity of such a number, check out some single
op assisted logs. Skip those of two radio crazies like K3WW or
KM9P. Exclude the first few hours of the contest and the first
hours on the high bands the first day, when everything is new.
See how many band changes the SO/A guys are making. My sense is
that the 12 - 20 range will be on the low side.
I didn't see it mentioned in the CAC proposal, but Multi/2 should
also be included in a band change per hour system. The same
number as M/S, for each transmitter, would be the obvious choice.
I'm glad the CAC is finally considering elimination of the ten
minute rule. I urge them to do so, and to set an appropriate
number of allowed band changes so this issue will not have to be
reconsidered after a year of use.
Jim Stahl K8MR k8mr@barf80.nshore.org
----------------------------
Jim Stahl
InterNet: k8mr@barf80.nshore.org
Basic Amateur Radio Frequency, BARF-80 +1 216/237-8208
"Totally devoted to Amateur Radio" - 24 Hrs a day 8/N/1 14.4k-300 baud
>From w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) Sat Aug 3 00:16:13 1996
From: w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Subject: ARRL 160 - Put down west coast!
Message-ID: <199608022316.QAA16161@desiree.teleport.com>
>First of all, I believe that the ARRL has stated that the ARRL 160 contest
>is not intended to be a DX type of contest. I believe it has been stated
>that it is supposed to be a 160 SS of sorts. I'm not speaking for the ARRL,
>just from memory.
>
>Bill, KM9P
>
Well, if THIS IS REALLY TRUE, the only thing to do is make ONLY ARRL
Sections multipliers and all DX counts just like another QSO in South Texas
or ENY, ie: NO MULTS for DX. This would certainly help to ease the uneven
playing field. Ten JAs would count the same as 10 Europeans in 10 different
countries . . .
Stan w7ni@teleport.com
>From w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) Sat Aug 3 00:16:17 1996
From: w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Subject: ARRL CAC input sought
Message-ID: <199608022316.QAA16202@desiree.teleport.com>
>OH....so as ABRAUN pointed out now we can "rubber clock"3-5 minutes
>and thats OK !!!! 10 minute rule has outlived its usefullness!!
>What we really need is a "2 RADIO RULE" any more than 2 RADIOS and
>you are M/M. One radio is RUN the other is MULT !
>73 de JOHN K9UWA
Would it be OK to HAVE more than two radios if they are not turned on?
How about you only OWN two radios and the rest are borrowed?
How about "no more than two radios inside of a 100 foot circle"?
How about it is OK to turn on more than two radios if the volume is turned
down on all but two of them?
This gets way too complicated. There are too many rules now.
Stan w7ni@teleport.com
|