I have both CT and NA working just fine with my 761, and have never had
any problems doing it. I have to TTL/232 interfaces, one I built using
the MAX232 (from QST last January) and one using separate line drivers/
line receivers, plus a 555-based -9V power supply. I should mention,
though, that I've never been able to get either CT or NA to talk to the
rig over COM3 or COM4--I have to use COM 1 or COM2. I know my 3 and 4
ports are working fine, but even version 8 of CT seems to balk at it.
I've tried using those ports for the TNC connection, and what's curious
is that keyboard input goes through to the TNC just fine, but I cant
receive any output from the TNC. So when contest time rolls around I just
disconnect my mouse (also only good on COM1 or COM2, courtesy of half-
baked drivers) and hook up the line for computer control of the rig.
Bruce, AA6KX
>From bhorn@netcom.com (Bruce Horn) Wed Jan 5 07:10:11 1994
From: bhorn@netcom.com (Bruce Horn) (Bruce Horn)
Subject: ARRL DX Top 5 by Zones
Message-ID: <199401050710.XAA28153@mail.netcom.com>
Hi All,
Corrected 1992 CQ Worldwide SSB for Multi/Single
Simulated Zone 4 Top 5
KS9K 6,634,893
K8AZ 6,039,200
AA8U 5,037,746
WB8K 4,710,445
K0KR 4,324,986
While waiting for Pratas Is. to show up this evening, I decided to compile the
top 5 lists by zone for the 1992 ARRL DX contest. These top 5 lists were
compiled from the published results in QST. Since QST groups results by
section, I was able to determine the zone of each contestant for single ops.
For multi/ efforts, the zone was approximated by combining call areas, as was
done for the CQWW lists.
Here it is.
----------- 1992 ARRL DX SSB -------------------
Single Operator, All Band, High Power
Zone 3 Top 5
WC6H 1,918,590
N7TT 1,510,692
NB7N 926,076
W6REC 718,029
WA7FOE 595,791
Zone 4 Top 5
W9RE 3,414,534
N5RZ 2,565,888
W9ZRX 2,064,150
WZ4F 1,951,266
K8GL 1,587,618
Zone 5 Top 5
K1DG 4,082,463
K1ZM 4,034,052
N6BV/1 3,963,519
W3BGN 3,097,584
K3ZO 2,728,713
Single Operator, All Band, Low Power
Zone 3 Top 5
W7YAQ 586,188
N6NF 364,506
KJ6HO 360,000
K7MM 351,480
AA7RN 338,742
Zone 4 Top 5
N6WLX/8 819,798
KS9B 795,108
KE2JO/4 564,135
K9LJN 561,885
AC0W 482,922
Zone 5 Top 5
N8II 1,375,998
W2TZ 1,055,610
KE2ZU 703,152
WA2EOV 674,541
WS1A 644,736
Multi/Single
Simulated Zone 3 (call areas 6 & 7) Top 5
W6EEN 1,755,549
W7RM 1,347,990
NV6O 1,317,483
KV6H 748,095
W6OAT 533,619
Simulated Zone 4 (call areas 5,8,9,0) Top 5
K8AZ 4,130,820
KS9K 3,779,787
KW8N 3,412,530
AA8U 3,206,268
AB5K/0 1,646,394
Simulated Zone 5 (call areas 1,2,3,4) Top 5
AD1C 3,857,040
W3XU 3,599,274
K1VR 3,388,392
AA1K 3,355,200
KE2AY 3,220,206
Multi/Two
Simulated Zone 3 Top 5
W6ISA 2,611,089
N7RO 1,342,320
KF6HI 1,220,832
N7QQ 703,440
(that's all)
Simulated Zone 4 Top 5
K0RF 4,787,496
K5NA 4,693,500
(that's all)
Simulated Zone 5 Top 5
K1AR 9,851,358
N3RS 7,427,970
K2TR 6,891,846
WW2Y 2,837,460
WM1K 1,712,016
Multi/Unlimited
Simulated Zone 3 Top 5
NK7U 4,522,425
(that's all)
Simulated Zone 4 Top 5
K5XI 5,746,284
W0AIH 4,076,865
(that's all)
Simulated Zone 5 Top 5
N2RM 13,024,950
W3LPL 11,124,594
K1RX 6,918,531
W4MYA 5,435,664
NF2L 4,603,365
-------------------- 1992 ARRL DX CW --------------------------
Single Op, All Band, High Power
Zone 3 Top 5
NN7L 1,272,141
W6EEN 1,129,257
N7TT 954,081
N6AA 455,880
W6UM 434,838
Zone 4 Top 5
K5GN 2,339,064
KW8N 2,315,196
N4AR 2,080,860
W9RE 2,006,118
N2IC/0 1,867,140
Zone 5 Top 5
K1ZM 3,324,672
KM1H 3,281,718
W1KM 3,100,629
N2LT 2,920,020
N6BV/1 2,912,112
Single Op, All Band, Low Power
Zone 3 Top 5
W7YAQ 673,728
W6JTI 480,528
WA0RJY/7 299,376
K7MM 289,152
KE7NS 190,323
Zone 4 Top 5
N8AA 919,320
K5RX 908,193
WB8YJF 508,254
K5KLA 440,538
N8AGU 437,760
Zone 5 Top 5
W1PH 1,542,468
W2TZ 1,115,868
K7SV/4 1,071,216
K0EJ/4 929,070
KC1SJ 921,591
Multi/Single
Simulated Zone 3 Top 5
W6BA 1,788,912
KG6GF 1,498,860
K6JYO 1,170,855
W6ISA 1,144,521
K6KM 958,569
Simulated Zone 4 Top 5
K8CX 1,608,045
W9XT 1,335,510
K5OJI 1,053,864
WB8OHO 932,310
K0KE 481,770
Simulated Zone 5 Top 5
K3LR 3,906,720
W3BGN 3,650,787
N4RJ 3,389,463
K1VR 2,733,234
K2WI 2,727,000
Multi/Two
Simulated Zone 3 Top 5
W6GO 2,133,786
NK7U 1,724,598
WK6V 462,264
(that's all)
Simulated Zone 4 Top 5
K8AZ 4,647,258
WD8LLD 2,618,136
NC0P 2,026,176
K8LX 1,461,660
(that's all)
Simulated Zone 5 Top 5
K1AR 7,882,974
N2NT 6,968,592
N3RS 5,938,665
K2TR 5,787,096
K1DG 5,597,550
Multi/Unlimited
Simulated Zone 3 Top 5
N6CQ 1,344,264
(that's all)
Simulated Zone 4 Top 5
K8CC 5,037,210
AA6TT/0 5,018,436
W0AIH 3,200,496
(that's all)
Simulated Zone 5 Top 5
W3LPL 8,792,388
K1RX 7,661,262
K4VX 5,710,944
KY1H 4,628,286
N2RM 4,252,248
73 de Bruce, WA7BNM
P.S. Enough compilation for awhile. This should give the contest
sponsors an idea of what works and what doesn't.
>From Willy Umanets <uw9ar@chal.chel.su> Wed Jan 5 15:47:37 1994
From: Willy Umanets <uw9ar@chal.chel.su> (Willy Umanets)
Subject: MORE ON CIS PX'es
Message-ID: <AAP4kAjau7@chal.chel.su>
I finally saw the official document regarding CIS prefix distribution.
The document I saw was a letter from Russian Department of Communications
to its Chelyabinsk branch.
Here's what I saw:
OLD PX NEW SERIES
UD 4JA-4KZ
UG EKA-EKZ
UC EUA-EWZ
UF 4LA-4LZ
UL UNA-UQZ
UM EXA-EXZ
UO ERA-ERZ
UA RAA-RZZ, UAA-UIZ
UJ EYA-EYZ
UH EZA-EZZ
UI UJA-UMZ
UB URA-UZZ, EMA-EOZ
---
73, Willy, UW9AR
----------------------------------------------------------
JV "Challenger Ltd" phone : 351-260-0190
Internet : uw9ar@chal.chel.su fax : 351-237-1756
>From k2mm@MasPar.COM (John Zapisek) Wed Jan 5 09:22:41 1994
From: k2mm@MasPar.COM (John Zapisek) (John Zapisek)
Subject: CT, NA, and the Icom IC-761
Message-ID: <9401050922.AA12047@greylock.local>
> I've never been able to get either CT or NA to talk to the rig over COM3
> or COM4--I have to use COM 1 or COM2. I've [also] tried using those ports
> for the TNC connection, and what's curious is that keyboard input goes
> through to the TNC just fine, but I cant receive any output from the TNC.
I ran into a similar problem setting up CT at AG6D. Turned out to be the
interrupt levels of the COM ports.
I started with COM1 and COM2 for the network and COM3 for the radio. I was
using standard DOS interrupt levels:
Port COM1 COM2 COM3 COM4
DOS Standard INT4 INT3 INT4 INT3
COMTSR Default INT4 INT3 INT9 INT5
Because COM3 was on INT4 (DOS standard) instead of INT9 (CT default), I had
to start COMTSR3 with a "-I4" switch.
It worked somewhat, but the radio response was slow, and it would sometimes
say "radio not responding". I fixed it by moving jumpers on the COM boards
to give each port its own interrupt. They weren't CT defaults, but that's
OK because each COMTSR can be told what interrupt the hardware is using.
It was very handy to have some diagnostic software ("CHECKIT") that told me
what interrupt level each port was responding at.
Now I've got a computer with a COM3 port using a non-standard interrupt that
works OK with CT but won't work with my communications software. I get the
same behavior as you see with your TNC -- keyboard input goes TO the modem
just fine, but I can't receive any output FROM the modem.
Hope this helps. 73. --John/K2MM
>From Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> Wed Jan 5 16:06:25 1994
From: Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> (Trey Garlough)
Subject: more whining
Message-ID: <757785985.996435.GARLOUGH@TGV.COM>
Rich, K2WR, writes:
> Can we PLEASE have a moratorium on the incessant whining about the
> various geographical biases that are inherent in our activity?
>
> The contest rules did not create this situation; please blame the gods
> of solar and geo- physics and the socio-economic influences that created
> uneven population densities across the globe. Every part of the world
> is good for something and bad for something else.
>
> So I'm sorry that the East Coast is closer to Europe. I'm sorry that
> the number of contesters in Japan went down.
>
> Your dissatisfaction with the
> state of the world of contesting has been noted. It really has.
> So please find something else to say. It's getting VERY, VERY, VERY,
> BORING.
I agree 100% with Rich and think he is totally on the right track. In
fact, why don't we take this attitude to it's logical conclusion and
eliminate the top USA and Europe boxes from the CQWW writeup. I propose
there only be a box that shows the top ten single op scores in the WORLD.
The fact that they made the highest scores clearly indiacates they are
the best operators. The CQWW results as they are published now
shamelessly pander to those pikers in the US and Europe who can't cut the
mustard and make the WORLD top ten. Don't you agree?
--Trey, WN4KKN/6
>From Jim Reisert AD1C 05-Jan-1994 1114 <reisert@wrksys.enet.dec.com> Wed Jan
> 5 16:09:12 1994
From: Jim Reisert AD1C 05-Jan-1994 1114 <reisert@wrksys.enet.dec.com> (Jim
Reisert AD1C 05-Jan-1994 1114)
Subject: more on CIS prefixes (old UI, UC)
Message-ID: <9401051609.AA15033@us1rmc.bb.dec.com>
Saw UK8AA (ex-RI8AA) and UK9AA (ex-UI8AA) spotted this morning. So I guess
that implies:
RI8 -> UK8
UI8 -> UK9
Also, saw UC2LFT spotted last night, from Belarus. Guess they have not
changed over to new prefixes yet.
73 - Jim AD1C
>From Walton L. Stinson" <wstinson@csn.org Wed Jan 5 15:53:23 1994
From: Walton L. Stinson" <wstinson@csn.org (Walton L. Stinson)
Subject: ARRL Contest Advisory Committe Update
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.9401050823.I16329-b100000@teal.csn.org>
Just got a note from Randy, K5ZD, who commented that he wasn't
aware that any CAC were on the contest reflector. CAC members
AA2DU, K3LR, and me read reflector mail regularly, as does KR1R at the
ARRL contest desk. From time to time I read complaints, suggestions,
and news that should be copied to the CAC. In the future, if you
compose a message for cq-contest and want to copy it to the cac,
just make the Cc address CAC@arrl.org (the adr of the cac relfector) and a
copy will be sent to all of the members who have e-mail capability as
well as to the contest desk. while most contest reflector mail is
read by somebody on cac, addressing mail to cac@arrl.org guarantees that
i and others will read it. Of course, for formal proposals, a letter
sent to cac c/o arrl is still the best approach. also, in the near
future, i will be posting a list of the issues that cac has been
asked to vote on so that you will have an opportunity to comment
before a final recommendation is made to the arrl awards committee.
73, Walt, W0CP, Chairman, ARRL Contest Advisory Committee
>From Susan M. King (8-695-3688)" <ku2q@vnet.IBM.COM Wed Jan 5 18:17:17 1994
From: Susan M. King (8-695-3688)" <ku2q@vnet.IBM.COM (Susan M. King
(8-695-3688))
Subject: CT requests
I am sending this list of requests for CT changes for someone who has
read-only access to this reflector:
--------------- Beginning of Included Message ------------------------
§MSG:FROM: FSTEELE --DALVM3 TO: KU2Q --KGNVMC 01/05/94 09:42:51
To: KU2Q --KGNVMC
Fant Steele (214) 406-7627 (T/L) 752-7627
Instructor DALVM3(FSTEELE)
Skill Dynamics
Subject: K1EA and CT version 9
Susan, Thanks for posting this. Fant
Ken,
Here are a list of changes I would like to see.
1) The one thing I would like to see is SLOWER CW. There are those of
us that use your program but cannot copy CW very fast. I see that
you are looking at changes in the CW part anyway so please make it
slower. We use CT at field day and it would be nice if the
novice/tec station could use it at 5-7 WPM.
2) A way to generate a copy of CT that expires after some time period.
I am a licensed user of CT and at our club's Field Day I use my
copy. I am on site most of the time but still worry about someone
"borrowing" a copy when I'm not looking. We run a MM with around
100 people floating around at one time or another. If I could
setup a copy that died at the end of the event I wouldn't have to
worry about anyone getting my copy.
3) Time zone to UTC conversion. I have seen several programs that use
an environmental value to determine the correct UTC from the time of
day clock. This would be a nice feature to add. All you have to do
is SET TZ=CST6CDT for example and the program knows that you are in
the central time zone 6 hours away from UTC. I know I can reset
my computer clock but for the casual contester it's a pain. Also
under OS/2 I may be running things that need the clock set to the
correct local time.
Fant Steele (FANT@VNET.IBM.COM)
KB5EQL
ÿÿ
>From Danny Eskenazi <0005720561@mcimail.com> Wed Jan 5 18:29:00 1994
From: Danny Eskenazi <0005720561@mcimail.com> (Danny Eskenazi)
Subject: CAC
Message-ID: <83940105182938/0005720561PK1EM@mcimail.com>
Walt: You will find that TheNW Div is also regularly represented on
the reflector, and I believe that K0HB also is a regular, so indeed we
are nearing a quorum on the reflecetor. How many of the CAC are on the
CAC reflector? Good show on taking input electronically! 73 Danny K7SS
>From Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> Wed Jan 5 20:53:14 1994
From: Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> (Trey Garlough)
Subject: netiquette and the reflector
Message-ID: <757803194.313435.GARLOUGH@TGV.COM>
Please take a moment to read and consider what I say in this message.
I have been meaning to make this posting for a long time, but I really
don't care much for the role of net-police. Many subscribers to this
forum have sent me private messages indicating a desire to improve
the signal-to-noise ratio of what appears in their mailbox. In
particular, people have asked if I can set up the mailing list so that
it will stifle the "boring stuff" and refelct "only the interesting
messages." This is not possible without RMM (Read My Mind)
technology, which is not available at this time.
Hint #1:
When I started doing wireless, I was told that the best filter for
copying CW was the one "between your ears." This bit of wisdom
applies to electronic mail messages as well.
CQ-Contest an "unmoderated" forum, which means I don't screen or
censor any messages. Therefore each person who posts a message must
take personal responsibility to ensure that what they say adds some
value to the forum. Examples of this are covered in the Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQ) list. I am going to review a few of them here.
Hint #2:
> Most answers should go directly to the person who posed the question,
> rather than to the list.
This seems obvious to me, but often this advice is not followed.
Hint #3:
> Would you pay $0.50 to read the message that you just wrote?
If I were paying $0.50 per message to read this stuff, I would be
really pissed. Maybe a better way of phrasing this would be "would
you pay $5.00 to *post* the message you just wrote?" In other words,
is what you have to write so important that you would be willing to pay
$5.00 to make everyone else read it. Think of messages to individuals
as being free, but messages to CQ-Contest as costing $5.00 each.
Hint #4:
> Avoid messages that are a complete reprint of someone else's
> message, with nothing but "I agree" or "Me too" added to the bottom --
> not much value there.
Here is an example that incoroporates 2, 3, and 4: "Who else thinks
the change to 36 hours for single op in WPX is lame?" All responses
should go back to the person who posed the question, *not* to the
list. If the asker gets an interesting list of responses, he should
post a summary back to the list.
Hint #5:
If you get a private message from me reminding you to follow the forum
guidelines, take the hint. I have sent message to several people that
said "please do not make XYZ type postings." Most people have honored
these requests by not making XYZ postings. This is great. However,
there are a few people who have reacted by posting messages that say
"I know Trey asked me not make XYZ postings but here is an another XYZ
posting." Sigh. This is not exactly what I was hoping for. Please,
take the hint.
See you on the net.
--Trey Garlough, WN4KKN/6
trey@tgv.com
|