From: wd5n@msg.ti.com
Subject: re: Assisted/Internet
Well, I wasn't gonna jump in this fray, but seems like some people
are getting confused. And as those who know me can attest, I may
not always be right, but I am never wrong. note>>>> :-) <<<note
Seems obvious that the rule which says non-amateur means must not
be used to "elicit" contacts means (as someone else mentioned)
that you shouldn't call your buddy up on the phone and ask him to
work you. The rules also state that this is not allowed "during"
(they use bold letters) the contest, which indicates that you can
send e-mail, phone calls, telegrams, etc BEFORE the contest to urge
folks to work you. The rules also define "assisted" as "use of DX
spotting nets is allowed" with no limits stated on what constitutes
a net. Now, the packetcluster network in Texas has almost always
included a landline link between some of the cities (this is part
of the Texnet link system used to link Texas sites together, the
use of which has been generously granted for packetcluster use).
Some clusters use hf links to link nodes from all over the country.
Others use Internet. It ends up being somewhat of an equalizer as
far as spotting goes, as there are many parts of the country that
do not have access to the bigger cluster networks on either coast.
Whether or not the spots from afar are useful to you or not makes
no difference to the legality of it.
Someone mentioned calling our CAC reps and discussing this. Well,
CAC is an ARRL function, and weren't we first discussing CQ contests?
I know that Field Day rules state something similar, but they say
you may not "solicit" (instead of "elicit") contacts by non-amateur
means, with the same intention.
Now, the rules did allow people to spot themselves on the clusters
as a means to "elicit" contacts by amateur means, but CQ decided
that was not proper so they recently wrote into the rules that this
is not allowed. On the other hand, if you work someone on the air
in the contest, you can certainly ask them to spot you on their
cluster. Whether or not they do so is up to them.
None of what I have mentioned seems to me to be bending the rules
or using "creative" interpretation. Seems very straightforward to me.
So, bottom line in my mind is that using an internet connection to
access cluster information is A-OK in the Assisted category. They
merely have more technology at their disposal. Some people may still
be using voice spotting because they don't have access to cluster
technology. If people disagree on the interpretation then I suggest
contacting CQ magazine. On the other hand, if people agree on the
interpretation but disagree on the "spirit" or "ethics" of this rule,
then perhaps this is the forum to hash it out to see what contesters
think is best.
73 (and please work me as WP2AHW [unless vanities come thru first]
in CQWW-CW) :-)
Dave WD5Nifty <wd5n@msg.ti.com>
>From jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid) Wed Aug 30 22:17:40 1995
From: jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid) (Jim Reid)
Subject: Mahalo (Thank you)
Message-ID: <199508302114.LAA24339@hookomo.aloha.net>
Thanks to all who responded to by Win95 problems.
Found the down menu , and have gotten the file
extensions back.. Also, I did find the missing
icons, the programs were found in the Explorer, but
could only get them going from the MS-DOS prompt
option as did not know which were the .exe files.
Anyway the missing icons were tucked away
as sub-icons(?) under a main list icon called
"main". So now can also open WJ2O, Miniprop,
Morse Acadamy and the Softwave rcvr directly
from the icons.
73, Jim, AH6NB
>From Jay Townsend" <jayt@comtch.iea.com Wed Aug 30 23:00:29 1995
From: Jay Townsend" <jayt@comtch.iea.com (Jay Townsend)
Subject: Internet/Single Assisted
Message-ID: <199508302200.WAA19759@comtch.iea.com>
aa2du@netcom.com wrote:
> Internet link to another cluster, your portion of the link IS via
> amateur radio. However, the Internet connection is clearly NOT
> an amateur means of communication.
Actually I don't think that you will find this to be true. All the links
use packet radio. The Amateur Radio packets conform to all normal,
traditional, and indeed technical aspects of ham radio. They are then
encapsulated prior to transmission over the internet. This encapsulation
usually if not always takes place using NOS an amatuer radio designed,
and implemented protocall. For all intents and purposes its just packet
radio. You can't break into the packet even while it goes thru the
network. It just happens that part of the radio link might be on
microwave frequencies....or....
> This is an issue the CAC might look into, provided there
> is indication that this is happening on a regular basis. Any
This certainly is happening on a regular basis. In fact has been for
several years. But clearly this is a relatively non-important issue. If I
happen to sit in a room and type what comes in on one service (internet)
and then put it back out on VHF packet it all actually comes to the user
via ham radio means.
--
Jay Townsend, WS7I < jayt@comtch.iea.com >
>From n3rr@cais.cais.com (Bill Hider) Wed Aug 30 23:46:19 1995
From: n3rr@cais.cais.com (Bill Hider) (Bill Hider)
Subject: ZAPPED ! It CAN happen 2 U !
Message-ID: <199508302246.SAA09928@cais.cais.com>
At 05:20 AM 8/30/95 -0700, Pete Smith wrote:
>Bill, N3RR, wrote:
>
>
>>I'll add AGAIN that everyone should read 'The "Grounds" for Lightning & EMP
>>Protection' by PolyPhaser Corporation. Many of the comments stated on this
>>reflector on this subject have not been thoroughly researched and are
>>ill-conceived. The PolyPhaser literature has logical, engineering-based,
>>emperically-derived data and discussion, which requires some thought, but
>>which is relatively easily understood. <No, I am not in any way affilliated
>>with PolyPhaser; I happen to agree with their approach to professional
>>lightning protection>. Everyone should also subscribe to their free
>>publication, "Striking News".
>
>I agree, but now face a bit of a conundrum. The "Grounds" book speaks
>approvingly of DC-grounded antenna elements, and particularly driven ones,
>from the lightning protection standpoint. Others, perhaps for antenna
>performance reasons, advocate insulating yagi elements from the boom. My
>new Force-12 C-3 CONTEST antenna has all-insulated elements and is designed
>for either a coax-coil choke or a bead balun ... hence no DC path to ground.
>
>Any suggestions, clarifications, or other head-straightening gratefully
>appreciated.
>
>73, Pete Smith N4ZR
>n4zr@ix.netcom.com
>WEST Virginia
>
>
Pete,
PolyPhaser's lightning protection devices have DC blocks so no lightning
energy goes to the rig through them. DC grounding of antenna tends to
protect the antenna from lightning as well as shunting some of its energy to
ground. A non-grounded antenna (like my Force 12 EF-180A and CushCraft
40-2CD CONTEST antennas) is still suitable for the lightning protectors,
though not optimum for lightning protection.
Bottom line, whether DC grounded or not, the antennas shud be isolated from
the shack equip with DC blocked lightning protectors and ground kits (note
plural).
Bill
n3rr@cais.com
>From n3rr@cais.cais.com (Bill Hider) Wed Aug 30 23:51:23 1995
From: n3rr@cais.cais.com (Bill Hider) (Bill Hider)
Subject: ZAPPED ! It CAN happen 2 U !
Message-ID: <199508302251.SAA10517@cais.cais.com>
At 07:26 AM 8/30/95 PDT, McCarty, DK 'Dav wrote:
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>How do I get the book?
>dkmc@chevron.com
>
PolyPhaser's numbers are: 800-325-7170, 702-782-2511
Tell them you want the book and tell them you're a ham and you'll probably
get a discount (I got 10%). Remember to get on their mailing list for the
Free newsletter.
Bill, N3RR
----------
>>From: N3RR1
>>To: DKMC
>>Subject: Re: ZAPPED ! It CAN happen 2 U !
>>
>>To: PAULKB8N--INTERNET PAULKB8N
>> AA4NU1 --INTERNET AA4NU
>> cq-contest@tgv.com
>>
>>Subject: Re: ZAPPED ! It CAN happen 2 U !
>>At 07:05 AM 8/29/95 -0400, PaulKB8N@aol.com wrote:
>>>Bill,
>>>
>>>Thanks for a very timely and well-presented summary of what lightening
>damage
>>>can do.
>>>
>>>As I read your piece, I kept thinking of the charged atmosphere as a
>>>potential difference against ground. Since E=IR, the lower the R,
>>>theoretically the higher the I, and hence the greater the potential for
>>>damage. I believe that there is a fundamental dilemma when dealing with
>>>lightning protection schemes. It seems that the largest grid discharge
>>>system available at most locations to defuse lightning is AC Ground.
> Putting
>>>several ground rods at each tower location cannot provide as great a
>"current
>>>sink" as that of house wiring that is connected to a larger electrical
>grid.
>>>
>>>What, then, is the strategy for dealing with lightning? The bigger the
>>>"fuse" is that blows, the greater the collateral damage will be. As Bill
>>>mentioned, control cables became the "fuse" and the results were
>devastating.
>>>
>>>It seems that there may be two schools of thought on grounding, one that
>says
>>>ground everything, and one that says isolate everything to prevent a
>current
>>>path. Have there been any experiments dealing with passive lightning
>>>protection? The more extensively we ground an antenna system and the
>lower
>>>the ohmic value of the ground, don't we create a more attractive and
>>>potentially more devastating discharge path?
>>>
>>>I don't want to start an ozone layer debate, but aren't there really two
>>>sides to this story?
>>>
>>>Paul, KB8N
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>HEY GUYS!
>>
>>The whole idea is for you to control the lightning discharge path to
>ground.
>>If you don't, the lightning will take its own path to ground and therefore
>>it (the lightning) will be in control! That'll mean burned-out electronics
>>gear and possibly worse (a QTH ??).
>>
>>Electrical grounds are primarily personnel and electrical fire safety
>>related and are installed to minimize the local resistance to ground from
>AC
>>Neutral/Common.
>>
>>Lightning grounds conduct static and lightning-induced voltages away from
>>sensitive equipment (including antennas, rotors, indoor equipment and QTHs)
>>and towards earth ground where they will be dissipated to a non-harmful
>level.
>>
>>Each type of ground system is compatable with the other. Each serves a
>>specific, yet different, purpose.
>>
>>If you're going to have an outdoor antenna, you'd better be prepared to
>>suffer the consequences if you don't install an adequate lightning
>>protection system. There is no excuse for not installing a cost effective
>>lightning protection system.
>>
>>Think of it as an insurance policy. If you've got $3000 in CONTEST
>>equipment, shouldn't you provide a couple hundred bucks (onetime charge,
>>amortize over 10-20 years) to protect it from total loss?
>>
>>I'll add AGAIN that everyone should read 'The "Grounds" for Lightning & EMP
>>Protection' by PolyPhaser Corporation. Many of the comments stated on this
>>reflector on this subject have not been thoroughly researched and are
>>ill-conceived. The PolyPhaser literature has logical, engineering-based,
>>emperically-derived data and discussion, which requires some thought, but
>>which is relatively easily understood. <No, I am not in any way
>affilliated
>>with PolyPhaser; I happen to agree with their approach to professional
>>lightning protection>. Everyone should also subscribe to their free
>>publication, "Stricking News".
>>
>>Comments/questions are welcome.
>>
>>Bill, N3RR
>>
>>n3rr@cais.com OR n3rr@cais.cais.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>From Esteban J. Morao" <esteban@sefl.satelnet.org Thu Aug 31 00:41:16 1995
From: Esteban J. Morao" <esteban@sefl.satelnet.org (Esteban J. Morao)
Subject: Internet --- Packet Cluster Resumes Part I
Message-ID: <01BA7711.097AC4A0@pm2-1.ppp.satelnet.org>
I new when I stared to write the message abt the internet---DX cluster =
connection was going to bring a great discussion.
So far I have receive tons! of mail regarding this issue (A resumes of =
all message rx will be e-mail right after I send this one out!).
This is a tricky subject!, anyone can connect to net using their packet =
radio through a TCP/IP - Packet gateway!, and then from there connect to =
a remote cluster using the Internet. I see this fit in the rule... Joe =
Doe is using a HAM RADIO source to connect to the cluster!.=20
Connecting to a remote cluster through the NET is great tool... and =
better if you are on an area that has no dx cluster or very few dxers! =
(Like the one here in Ft. Lauderdale) or half of the users have left to =
operate the contest from another location.
Any comments send them direct to me PSE...
73 de Steve W4/YV5DTA
esteban@sefl.satelnet.org
>From Esteban J. Morao" <esteban@sefl.satelnet.org Thu Aug 31 00:43:05 1995
From: Esteban J. Morao" <esteban@sefl.satelnet.org (Esteban J. Morao)
Subject: Internet---Packet Cluster Resume Part II
Message-ID: <01BA7711.0BEF6E20@pm2-1.ppp.satelnet.org>
It seems to me that the internet is, in a sense, a commercial
avenue. All spotting functions related to the contest, WHILE THE
CONTEST IS IN SESSION, should be STRICTLY via amateur radio=20
means. This includes no telephone linked packet systems, etc.
Mike N0BSH
n0bsh@aol.com
hi steve...i read your messge here in Smithville, Ohio
yes i believe using the internet to connect to packet would be the same =
as
connecting to a packet cluster directly.
I wish they would change the rules to allow packet clusters without =
putting
us into the assisted classification. I would make the contests a lot =
more
fun
73's Jack, KA8D
I researched the same thing for the V26B operation. The answer =
is NO!
Using an Internet connection via Telephone Line is not within the rules.
Also, getting spots passed to you from a station that is connected to =
Internet
is NOT within the rules.
Good Luck!
Dick K3MQH/V26T
No!
No information sources except ham-radio is allowed during CQ WW=20
DX contest. No phone, No internet...
---------
Tack Kumagai JE1CKA/KH0AM
TEL:81-30-066-6408, FAX:81-423-93-4449
Internet: je1cka@nal.go.jp
Probably not considering the recent rule changes. You are probably wise =
to
assume that if someone on the CQ Contest Committee didn't think of it =
first,
that it is against the rules. Well, not against the rules... but =
against
the spi
Of course it is! No doubt..even packet itself is ASSISTED CAT. =20
Unassisited is the fact that *you* did all of the contesting UNASSISTED=20
by any other means.
Victor - KI6IM / V31VB
Mayan God of Contestors
rit of the contest. Whatever the hell that means.
I
would without question consider that "assisted", Steve.
73, Ward N0AX
I personally see no problem with the idea of using any form of =
technology
to aid in operating a contest, short of actually calling people up to =
tell
them
to get on the air.=20
Being a regular entrant in the assisted category, this issue is dear
to my heart. This is a subject ripe for open and intellegent debate.
Questions such as: what constitutes the boundary, with ham radio
on one side and a sophisticated technological world is on the other.
I would say that if the internet connection connects to a real packet
cluster system where spots are posted by means of ham radio
(HF/VHF/UHF) it rightfully qualifies as assisted operation.
A philosophical problem we will have to address in the not too distant =
future
is when everyone is logged onto the cluster via telephone lines. The
question
isn't whether this is assisted operating, but whether this in fact is =
ham
radio anymore.=20
I regularly log onto packet cluster systems all over the world either =
via
some form of radio HF link, satellite, or via the internet by means
of telnet. I typically place a mail message on these accessable systems
reminding the operators/users that a contest is in the offing for the =
weekend
and that they should look for me on all bands. I have also spotted =
friends
on these systems, in real time. To date these methods have had little =
impact
on my score. My time is better spent putting up better antennas, getting
Murphy
out of the shack, or studing the CT manual on comfort breaks in the =
commode.
But before you know it we'll all be wearing Dick Tracy wrist watches
and carrying cell phones in our shirt pockets. Or, are we already =
there?
Well, gotta run my beeper just went off to remind me the roast is done =
in the
microwave.
73 de Walt - K2WK
Steve, packet use with DXCluster puts you on Assisted category. Any =
other help
also let's you on Assisted category.
73 - Vitor - PY2Ny
Sorry Walt, NO.
The CQ WW RULE describes on the use of non amateure related=20
sources.
As a regular M/S entrant, I make use of any and all packet spots that I =
can get
my hands on, AS LONG AS THEY ARE OBTAINED USING AMATEUR RADIO. I don't =
agree
with Walt's interpretation. My opinion is that the use of packet spots =
which
were directly or indirectly obtained using internet should not be =
allowed.
Unfortunately, this leads to an unenforceable "rule" that no packet =
clusters
should be connected to internet for the duration of the contest. If you =
want
to obtain out-of-area spots, you are going to have to use strictly =
amateur
radio means to get those spots - VHF or HF links.
Steve London, N2IC/0
n2ic@dr.att.com
I, too, am a regular SOA entrant and I think that an Amateur Radio =
contest
should be limited to using only Amateur Radio links during the contest, =
for
spotting or other contest purposes during the contest, including talking =
to
your buddy and alerting him (or him alerting you) to DX spots. Use of =
these
Amateur Radio links would, of course, be a determining factor in the =
users'
class of entry.
73...
Bill Hider, N3RR
This could be a tricky "rule interpretation".
The rule, as quoted by Tack, states it's unsportsmanlike to ELICIT
contacts via non-amateur means.
So I looked it up to be clear:
elicit (=EE-l=EEs=B4=EEt) verb, transitive
1. To bring or draw out (something latent); educe.
2. To call forth (a reaction, for example). See Synonyms at evoke.
IMHO, PacketCluster does not "draw out" or "call forth" DX multipliers.
It simply notifies you that they are there. I think that the above
rule was written to not allow telephoning your buddy in some far away
place to tell him to turn on the radio and work you.
Yes, some purists may think that amateur radio means ONLY. But by the
current rules, packetcluster does not "elicit" contacts or multipliers.
And, by "the spirit of the rules", maybe a spotting network is a=20
spotting network.
Please, no flames. Just another perspective.
Chad Kurszewski WE9V =
chad_kurszewski@csg.mot.com
|