Yo, Bill.... Nice setup... now if the photographer had understood that you
can't tilt down a wide angle lens because it causes convergence
distortion.... or does your tower really lean over like that?...... :)
Cheers ... Denny
>From Rich L. Boyd" <rlboyd@CapAccess.org Fri Mar 22 19:39:25 1996
From: Rich L. Boyd" <rlboyd@CapAccess.org (Rich L. Boyd)
Subject: truly local clubs
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91-FP.960322143607.18692K-100000@cap1.capaccess.org>
Correction, in a previous message, I meant to say stations farther than
20 miles apart may be sending in their scores together as a local club.
According to my understanding of it, even if it's just two stations, if
they're over the distance limit, they're in the medium club category!
I'm not seriously suggesting more categories, but creation of a "truly
local club" category (everyone within a mile or two of each other!!) I
guess would do it. hihi.
To really blow the grading curve, how about a local club -- what's the
limit, 10 logs? -- all 10 guys go out on separate DXpeditions. That
should really lay down the benchmark for all the other local clubs.
Sounds like the kind of thing some of our California contest brethren
would do -- don't most of them go on DXpeditions every contest? hi.
73
Rich Boyd KE3Q
>From Rich L. Boyd" <rlboyd@CapAccess.org Fri Mar 22 19:43:35 1996
From: Rich L. Boyd" <rlboyd@CapAccess.org (Rich L. Boyd)
Subject: Taking down Rohn 25
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91-FP.960322144047.18692L-100000@cap1.capaccess.org>
A local professional told us last year of a Rohn 25 that was guyed and
house bracketed. At ground level it had completedly rusted through on
all three legs, so that there was nothing supporting it at ground level
-- the building bracket was doing all the supporting, plus some guy
wires. The part between the bracket and the ground (except for a couple
inches of gap) was just hanging there!
Additionally, the tower was in an alleyway with power lines nearby in a
couple directions. Definitely a job for competent professionals with a
crane truck. Be careful.
Rich Boyd KE3Q
>From Douglas S. Zwiebel" <104141.2660@compuserve.com Fri Mar 22 19:44:13 1996
From: Douglas S. Zwiebel" <104141.2660@compuserve.com (Douglas S. Zwiebel)
Subject: local club DxPeditions
Message-ID: <960322194412_104141.2660_IHO54-1@CompuServe.COM>
Well, this is about the only contest-related matter on here in so
long, guess I can throw in my comments.
Two points of view here:
A) The new ARRL rule allowing DxPed to count will POTENTIALLY
alter how local clubs go about their business. If you can't
see that allowing DxPed in the local category could have a
DRAMATIC impact on how the game is played by that group, you
are either blind or stupid; maybe both.
B) Alternately, allowing DxPed for local clubs is simply the next
logical step in an illogical category. The concept of local
club is valid, however some local clubs have access to and
actually utilize mega-stations. How can a local club category
include a group of folks with "local" type antennas (what I
would characterize as the new CQWW "tribander and single wires"
category, with a member (or more) who have 3,4,5, or 6 towers,
multiple stacked antennas, tons of heliax(R), and so on. The
discrepancy is clear. So as I say, this is only the next
logical progression in an illogical grouping.
Certainly, it has been unwise of the ARRL in the past to EXCLUDE
DxPedtions...it hurt the clubs, the contesters and, to be sure,
the contest itself. CQWW has not had such a limitation, but
NEITHER did they have various categories of CLUBS either! I
wonder if the powers that be at the League even thought this
change through? If they didn't, shame on them. If they did,
let's hear about it: what was the logic? [I know, some league
member is going to say: "if you want an answer, don't direct
the question to the general forum, send it to the league. I
really don't care...if YOU care...send the question to the ARRL.]
There, that's saves another nebulous retort.
Personally, I can understand the reasoning for both sides, but
since I don't care much about clubs (except that they are vital
to the contest and add needed activity), I can't get excited
about this latest ruling.
de Doug KR2Q
>From Bill Fisher KM9P <km9p@akorn.net> Fri Mar 22 20:06:02 1996
From: Bill Fisher KM9P <km9p@akorn.net> (Bill Fisher KM9P)
Subject: variable exchanges
Message-ID: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960322145808.24373A-100000@paris.akorn.net>
On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, Gary Nieborsky wrote:
> I had an opportunity to compare my log to someone elses for ARRL CW DX and
> came across a strange item. On a number of same station, same band,
> different time QSO's in the two logs I found that the power part of the
> exchange was not always the same. This lead me to dig deeper and check for
> back-to-back (or reasonably close) QSO's. In three of them I found that the
> exchange was different. This sent me to the tapes. The tapes showed that
> indeed the dx station had sent something different each time. The other
> station is close enough to have a readable backscatter signal so I was able
> to hear his exchange. One of the Q's was 100 vs. 200....understandable in
> the heat of battle. However, 2 were KW vs. 100/500 ..... not so
> understandable.
>
> My question is this: Is this common? I know on different bands you can get
> different power reports (if you accept the auto-fill feature it can really
> mess you up) and later in the test you might find someone that cooked the
> amp and is giving out a true power.
I would reply directly, but I think this is an interesting topic. I have
noted many times in the ARRL contest that the calling station will be
unreadable. When I finally give up and send a CQ, the same station
reappears VERY READABLE.
What I believe is happening, is that many stations try to see how little
power they can run to work a given station. Start at 500mw and work up
until he works me.
If this is true, there are a number of stations that change their power
during the course of the contest depending on how good the ears are of
the station they are calling. I always log what I copy for a power. I
use the previously copied power only as a guide(guess)line for the
current QSO. If they are different, I will sometimes ask the station to
repeat. I NEVER go back and change a previous QSO's power unless it's a
carib station or a big effort that I know wouldn't change the power.
73
bill
>From Tom Morrison <t.morrison@liant.com> Fri Mar 22 14:11:00 1996
From: Tom Morrison <t.morrison@liant.com> (Tom Morrison)
Subject: SURVEY: Amateur Logging Data Interchange Format
Message-ID: <9603222017.AA09043@rmc.liant.com>
The following survey is intended to gather information for those of
us who have been discussing a standardized means of exchanging
data among amateur radio logging programs (known as ADIF). This
effort started from a basis of contesting, so with the tacit consent
of the ADIF group, I am submitting this to the subscribers to
cq-contest. Responses are solicited from USERS, AUTHORS and
CONTEST SPONSORS.
The intent of this survey is data gathering. The questions are
intended to promote informative replies. Please feel free to go
beyond the questions.
Please e-mail me directly at t.morrison@liant.com. ADIF members will
receive a summary; if you are not subscribed to ADIF and wish a summary,
let me know.
What is/are the main reason(s) we need a standard for data
interchange?
What advantages do you expect from a data interchange standard
for amateur radio logging programs?
As a USER of a logging program(s):
Which program(s) do you use?
Do you export/import data among different logging programs?
Do you export information from your logging program(s) for
use in other (nonamateur radio specific) programs?
What data field(s) are absolutely required for export/import?
What data field(s), while not absolutely necessary, are highly
desired for export/import?
Would you expect an ADIF standard to allow a log to be
exported from one contest logging program and imported
into another so that the receiving program would
be able to accurately score the log without additional
information (provided both programs claimed support for
a contest)?
Are you sure the author(s) of your program(s) are participating
in the ADIF standardization effort?
Are you an AUTHOR of a amateur radio logging program? If so:
Is it designed primarily for contesting? for DXing?
What are the system requirements for your software?
What formats do you currently import? Export?
What is(are) the implementation language(s) of your software?
For contesting programs:
How do you configure (rules, multipliers, etc.) for various contests?
Do you maintain a callsign "database" among/between contests?
Do you suggest correct callsigns from partial callsigns?
How do you resolve multiplier status that cannot be derived from
the callsign?
Are you a CONTEST SPONSOR? If so:
What contest(s) do you sponsor?
Would you accept ADIF files as submissions for your contest(s)?
What data would submitted logs be absolutely required to contain?
What data would submitted logs ideally contain?
Would you be willing to use ADIF as a means to distribute contest
information such as multipliers? Scoring information?
Tom Morrison, T.Morrison@liant.com
Liant Software Corporation
512-719-7019 FAX:512-719-7070 WWW: http://www.liant.com/
>From Rich L. Boyd" <rlboyd@CapAccess.org Fri Mar 22 20:37:53 1996
From: Rich L. Boyd" <rlboyd@CapAccess.org (Rich L. Boyd)
Subject: Big clubs...or not
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91-FP.960322153206.7019G-100000@cap1.capaccess.org>
I guess "big club" is a relative term. K3LR says his contest club, NCC,
has 33 members, which makes it a medium club for ARRL, and not at the top
of the medium range as PVRC has been for some years (almost 50 but not
quite.) We think we'll be over 50 in upcoming published results in the
forseeable future.
PVRC has spent no effort trying to influence the contest sponsors in any
way, has had no agenda items it's pursued with the contest sponsors. I
heard the various rover rule changes come up, but PVRC never took any
position as a club. I'm sure individuals affected did make their views
known, though.
PVRC has spent all its effort trying to have a good time with our
contesting experience, getting to know the other area contesters, share
hints and kinks, and to make our club more effective at contesting under
the existing rules -- we've given no effort to trying to change the rules
to match up to our capabilities in some way.
I don't feel my comments are in response to any accusation; the previous
discussion has just brought these thoughts to mind. 73
Rich Boyd KE3Q
|