> How about it ? Maybe get CQ and QST to publish the technique ? Watsay AR
> ? Billy ? (NCJ and CQ Contest too!)
>
Hi all of you,
I have a plenty of routines (BASIC/C/Excel Macro) to determine QTH-Locator. I
can also write down the algorithm, if someone need it. I have also routines
to count the distance (in metres and kilometres, not miles yards and fingers)
Waldek, DL7ANQ && SO6ANQ
>From veta@lanet.lv (YL2KL) Wed Aug 21 12:35:55 1996
From: veta@lanet.lv (YL2KL) (YL2KL)
Subject: YL2KF SARTG96 score
Message-ID: <199608210839.LAA15082@apse>
SARTG Worldwide
Call : YL2KF
Location: Latvia
Entry Class: Single Op, All Band
Band QSOs Pts Dist DX
80 81 795 0 26
40 115 1210 5 34
20 244 2815 24 45
15 138 1365 1 29
10 46 460 0 12
----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Total 624 6645 30 146
Score: 1169520
--------------------------------------
Claimed Score: 1169520
Power Output: 100 W
Club Participation: None
"I have observed all competition rules as well as all regulations
established for amateur radio in my country. My report is correct
and true to the best of my knowledge. I agree to be bound by the
decisions of the Awards Committee."
Date ___/___/___ Signature ____________________________Call __________
Vilnis Vosekalns,
Pernavas 54 - 15, P/N KUIVIZI,
LV-4034, LATVIA.,
>From fisher@hp-and2.an.hp.com (Tony Brock-Fisher) Wed Aug 21 13:40:52 1996
From: fisher@hp-and2.an.hp.com (Tony Brock-Fisher) (Tony Brock-Fisher)
Subject: YOU TOO CAN VOTE on CW!!
Message-ID: <9608211240.AA11742@hp-and2.an.hp.com>
I agree that the questions in this survey appear to be biased. I thought so
the first time I read it. Perhaps that's why I was in such a non-hurry
to reply - it feels to me like no matter what I write, my vote would
be counted as an anti-CW sentiment.
For the record:
1. I'm against removing the CW requirement Internationally and Domesticly.
2. I'm against removing any licensing requirements without substituting
other standards which serve to keep up the level of the amateur community.
I'll re-publish my piece on cw here:
I'm sure the number of people in this country who have never been to,
or cared to go to a National Park far outnumber the folks who have experienced
their beauty. I'm sure the sheer numbers of inner city poverty level
people far outnumber the total visitors to all of our Parks each year.
Does this mean we should close the parks, sell them for their real estate
value, and use the money to fund a food stamp program? I think not.
I use the above parallel to illustrate a point about CW, and the protection
of the mode. As Field Day was winding down, a fellow club member, who
is NOT a contester, but has been a ham for longer than Incentive Licensing,
commented to me:
" When I get on 40 CW at night in Field Day, the entire world as I know
it ceases to exist. It's just me and the band ".
There is something very special about CW. The only human digital mode
ever invented, it takes a serious commitment to ever arrive at the point
of reasonable appreciation. Sort of like climbing Mount Everest, one has
to put in a serious personal investment of time and ambition, before
one can ever appreciate the view from the summit.
What has been lost in all of the rancor about CW/NO-Code is that the
traditional entry into the world of HF was made only after the personal
achievment of CW ability sufficient to permit an operator to appreciate
the view. I personally feel that many desired to get to the top,
but wanted to be ferried there in helicopters and avoid going to
rock climbing school. The allure was so great.
The pressure on licensing authorities is too great now, and it is
my personal diagnosis that the CW requirements will be removed, first
from international, and then from national regulations. And with the
requirements, so too will the incentive to invest the personal
effort to get to the point where one can appreciate the view.
Comparing the CW requirement for Amateur Radio Licensing with the
hand-cranking requirement of Driver's Licensing of the past conjures
up an inappropriate view of CW. CW is no longer required for
operating any more than hand-cranking is required for driving - but
we still appreciate hand-cranked automobiles, and provide room for them
on our highways.
America has at it's roots the concept of equal opportunity - opportunity
towards the pursuit of happiness. For some, that pursuit requires
a National Park. For others, a few tens of kiloHertz. I say that
the preservation of the CW subbands is just as consistent with our
country's goals and morals as is the preservation of large areas
of land for the appreciation of ourselves and our children.
In the near future, it is imperative that hams of different groups
and interests realize that we are all "citizens of the same country" -
we are all hams; and if any of our interests are to survive, we must
stand together to protect the interests of all of us. We cannot
allow ourselves to be broken down into Coders and No-Coders, or
HF'ers and VHF'ers. We must remember that together we have the greatest
chance of defending our frequencies. We must not let our opponents
"divide and conquer".
-Tony, K1KP, fisher@hp-and2.an.hp.com
>From jtw2@NIOSR1.EM.CDC.GOV (Wassell, James T., Ph.D.) Wed Aug 21 15:14:00
>1996
From: jtw2@NIOSR1.EM.CDC.GOV (Wassell, James T., Ph.D.) (Wassell, James T.,
Ph.D.)
Subject: How to figure out your grid square.
Message-ID: <321A9AF9@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov>
I found these easy ways to determine your grid square from the N.E.W.S.
North East Weak Signal VHF Group Home Page.
Here is a description of a method to calculate your grid square from
longitude & latitude
using paper and pencil.
http://uhavax.hartford.edu/disk$userdata/faculty/newsvhf/www/my-grid.html
Or get some software to do it for you (download BD.zip from this url)
http://uhavax.hartford.edu/disk$userdata/faculty/newsvhf/www/vhf-soft.html
Better yet here are maps for North America grid squares (useful unless
you're too close
to a border to decide what square you're in).
http://uhavax.hartford.edu/disk$userdata/faculty/newsvhf/www/gridmaps.html
Actually, however I like the idea of making up your own exchange except
that
some people would choose something very easy like "5nnt5" or somebody might
attempt to change their exchange information for each QSO. It would be nice
to
have something closer to a "real information" exchange. How about the 6
digit
grid square? - That would be a little bit more of a challenge.
Sounds like a fun contest. 73. Terry, K3JT
>From vr2bg@asiaonline.net (VS6BrettGraham) Wed Aug 21 14:32:48 1996
From: vr2bg@asiaonline.net (VS6BrettGraham) (VS6BrettGraham)
Subject: More and more new contest
Message-ID: <199608211332.VAA01063@asiaonline.net>
N6TR asked:
Okay - BEAMING EU, JA and other DX, what do you think?
If I remember correctly, the idea behind this was to fix the ARRL 160. If
you aren't DX, then this is a hard concept to grasp. From out here, the
ARRL 160 is nothing more than a 160m SS where Ws can also work DX - one,
maybe two W6 Qs are the most one can expect to work & even then, if you
send an entry, it falls through the cracks & isn't listed in the results.
Want a VS6 in this season's ARRL 160? Don't look for me, mate! (Apologies
in advance to N6DX)
Working anything on 160 is a challenge here most of the time. The nearest
stations to work are JAs & 9M2AX - everything else is even tougher. This
makes scoring based on distance per Q exclusively very attractive.
This means we need grid squares for an exchange. It would appear that a
certain area of the world which is overly represented here is oblivious to
its grid square. To accomodate them & anyone else who doesn't cotton on to
what's going on, let's give a flat credit for a Q where a square isn't
copied, whether one is sent or not.
Extending this further, consider the typical "ESP" kinda 160m Q. You're
lucky just to get the call... under these conditions, you might get the
field part of the exchange down if you're _really_ lucky. Why not
accomodate this, too? The field is geographically meaningful & we should
be able to figure out something between Q point credit for no square copied
& full distance credit for copying the complete square - just don't ask me,
at least not now, as I'm sampling the wine again...
As for time, anything that doesn't cover 0000z Saturday to 2400z Sunday
will screw somebody somewhere out of prime operating time. It also gives
one the chance to do something the second night if the first is a dud.
Limiting total operating time within this period is fine by me, provided
that it doesn't cut into anyone's available productive time.
As for results, I'm all for no special treatment for anyone who thinks they
deserve it, as suggested by WN4KKN - even as one who's enjoyed a 10w limit
on this band until a few years ago. If the results denote who's single op,
who's multi-op & whatever power categories may be decided upon, I reckon we
can count on everybodys literacy to cover the rest.
I'm not to sure about WN4KKN's suggestion that entries should be in some
machine-readable form only. Not all of us DX have computers, Internet or
even typewriters. Perhaps entries that aren't subject to the extra
scrutiny possible should just be flagged as such in the results.
I think it goes without saying that this is a CW event. I'm also assuming
that this is a world-works-world event - I don't remember seeing this
mentioned anywhere so far. Remember, the idea is to turn the ARRL 160 into
something worthwhile. Anything that has even a hint of North American bias
will discourage DX activity, especially real DX.
No matter what this thing winds up being called, it is an operating event.
Please try not to do something that discourages operating.
Now, if after a trial run or two, this thing doesn't achieve the desired
goal, then I'd be keen to see the event stand on its own two feet. Then I
believe more of Trey's suggestions should be implemented.
73, VS6BrettGraham vr2bg@harts.org.hk
|