Beryl D. Simonson wrote:
>
> Jerry - You might consider forwarding the reviews to anyone who requests
> them. This is an old topic that has been much discussed, and most of our
> recommendations to you are not CONTEST logging programs. Have fun with
> the products.
>
> Beryl
Beryl - Well, it's a thought....BUT.....I have over 100 request and
they are still coming in! Still think it's old info?
-73-
Jerry
>From kw4t@pop.erols.com (Dan Weisenburger) Fri Aug 2 09:56:55 1996
From: kw4t@pop.erols.com (Dan Weisenburger) (Dan Weisenburger)
Subject: Irish 2m Beacon
Message-ID: <199608020856.EAA17792@smtp2.erols.com>
Hello all,
I remember reading where there was going to be an Irish 2 meter beacon
pointed toward the U.S. during this "E-Season". I've misplaced the information.
I'd like to get the details about this beacon again and if possible an E-Mail
address for the sponsor(s).
>From the shores of Lake Moneysgone, 73 Dan
>From je1cka@dumpty.nal.go.jp (Takao KUMAGAI) Fri Aug 2 12:42:37 1996
From: je1cka@dumpty.nal.go.jp (Takao KUMAGAI) (Takao KUMAGAI)
Subject: [cq-contest 17537] Irish 2m Beacon
Message-ID: <199608021142.UAA23034@dumpty.nal.go.jp>
Dear Dan
on 96/08/02, Dan Weisenburger writes:
I remember reading where there was going to be an Irish 2 meter beacon
pointed toward the U.S. during this "E-Season". I've misplaced the
information.
>From je1cka@dumpty.nal.go.jp (Takao KUMAGAI) Fri Aug 2 12:45:35 1996
From: je1cka@dumpty.nal.go.jp (Takao KUMAGAI) (Takao KUMAGAI)
Subject: [cq-contest 17537] Irish 2m Beacon
Message-ID: <199608021145.UAA23038@dumpty.nal.go.jp>
Sorry to all
I guess non-completed mail was transmitted by mistake.
Dear Dan
on 96/08/02, Dan Weisenburger writes:
: I remember reading where there was going to be an Irish 2 meter beacon
: pointed toward the U.S. during this "E-Season". I've misplaced the
information.
This does not fit to "contest" reflector and should be posted
on "VHF" reflector.
Anyhow I'll send you the detailed info which was announced on
"Newsline" a few weeks ago.
---------
Tack Kumagai JE1CKA/KH0AM
TEL:81-30-066-6408, FAX:81-423-93-4449
Internet: je1cka@nal.go.jp
>From 9h1el%global.net.mt@TGV.COM (Jeff Morris) Fri Aug 2 22:57:55 1996
From: 9h1el%global.net.mt@TGV.COM (Jeff Morris) (Jeff Morris)
Subject: Malta Contest Site
Message-ID: <MAPI.Id.0016.006831656c2020203735323330303030@MAPI.to.RFC822>
2nd August 1996
9h1el@global.net.mt
Hi All,
Paul, 9H1BT and I have recently gained access to an
8-acre plot on a hilltop close to my QTH here in Malta. It was a site
used by the British Army for communications to selected parts of the
world. It consists of 13 masts what appears at first to be scattered
around the site, until it was realised that they were positioned for
rhombic antennas to be pointed in the desired directions.
The masts are all about 100ft high, are heavily engineered
but are not rotatable. It would appear that the best ideas for
antennas would be either:
1. Re-install the rhombics, so that all desired directions for
contesting can be covered.
2. Buy 6061 aluminium tubing from overseas and construct
the farm using fixed yagis.
3. Build fixed delta loops in all directions suspended from a
rope or wire between masts.
Our intention is to construct a Multi-Multi or Multi-Single
station for the big events. Our main problem, like many others' is
finance. While I can afford to finance the project myself, I wonder if
this has been a problem that has been solved by the other big
groups.
We prefer that we do not involve the local clubs, as in any
case they are not particularly affluent. However we would like to get
overseas groups involved, but have little or no idea of fees to
charge, if this is permissible (we have to rent the site from the Malta
Government and get electricity re-installed).
Any advice or suggestions (constructive) would be greatly
appreciated.
Best 73
Jeff Morris/9H1EL/9H0A.
>From kw4t@pop.erols.com (Dan Weisenburger) Fri Aug 2 14:59:45 1996
From: kw4t@pop.erols.com (Dan Weisenburger) (Dan Weisenburger)
Subject: Irish 2 meter beacon
Message-ID: <199608021359.JAA05870@smtp2.erols.com>
WOW! Thanks for all the information, ask and you shall receive!
Not bad at all and oops! Your right Tack, that should have gone on
the VHF reflector.
Thanks,again all.
73 from Lake Moneysgone,
Dan
>From DKMC@chevron.com (McCarty, DK 'Dav) Fri Aug 2 16:31:08 1996
From: DKMC@chevron.com (McCarty, DK 'Dav) (McCarty, DK 'Dav)
Subject: ARRL CAC input sought
Message-ID: <CPLAN065.DKMC.615331080096215FCPLAN065@ION.CHEVRON.COM>
From: McCarty, DK 'David' -DKMC
To: OPEN ADDRESSING SERVI-OPENADDR
Cc: JDOWNIN1
Subject: RE: ARRL CAC input sought
Priority:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure I agree with you John, as the rules (the 10 minute rule and the
proposed 6 changes/hour rule) are meant to provide documented evidence--an
audit trail--which can separate the multi-single from the multi-multi. As
you suggest, it does not limit the number of actual rigs/antennas set up for
the operation, but it does limit how they are used. (The CQ WW rule which
causes many to think multiple stations are needed has nothing to do with the
10 minute rule, actually.)
The key question the rule must address is, "How do we distinguish between
one radio QSYing from band to band and multiple radios being used
simultaneously?"
Either rule can work adequately (not perfectly) to establish this
distinction. Eliminating the rule leads to a blurry picture. The main
question before us is, "Which rule sounds like the most fun?" A second
question is whether such a change would be fair (not make much change in the
competitive balance).
73
Dave K5GN
dkmc@chevron.com
----------
>From: JDOWNIN1
>To: DKMC
>Subject: RE: ARRL CAC input sought
>
>To: "'cq-contest@tgv.com'" <cq-contest@TGV.COM>
>
>Subject: RE: ARRL CAC input sought
>I'd like to pass my input to the group on the proposed M/S 10 minute rule
>change. The
>proposal is simple: eliminate it entirely. Simple rule: only one
transmitter
>and one receiver
>allowed on at any one time. QSY as much as you want. But no second rig for
>"running"
>two bands at once. (Call it the "30 second" rule if you like). This
approach
>keeps
>the amount of equipment for a competitive operation to a minimum - unlike
the
>CQWW that
>forces us to build two complete and separate high power stations to be
>competitive. For those
>of us that journey offshore for these shindigs minimizing the amount of
stuff
>to be shipped,
>broken, and lost makes a real difference. The ARRL DX contest can be won
M/S
>with a single
>rig from the carib. Let's not screw it up with more arcane rules - six
>changes per hour will soon
>turn into six per rig per hour.......... much like the present
>incomprehensible 10 minute rule where
>each rig gets its own clock!
>
>cheers,
>
>John N6YRU / V31DX
>
>The Cuba Libre Contest Club
>
>
>From HWDX09A@prodigy.com ( ROBERT REED) Fri Aug 2 20:08:48 1996
From: HWDX09A@prodigy.com ( ROBERT REED) ( ROBERT REED)
Subject: ARRL CAC input sought
Message-ID: <199608021808.OAA09046@mime4.prodigy.com>
Looking at the 10 minute rule in todays contesting I don't think it
serves any more useful purpose than to give imaginative thinkers a
problem to solve to get around it.
Rather than going on to the rubber clocking phase of the discussion
lets consider when the 10 minutes is calculated from. It should be
when you change bands and start listening. On the other hand say it
takes 4 minutes to break a heavy pileup. Do you have to stay on the
band for another 6 or do you have to stay a full 10 from where your
log says your first contact on the band was. I know what the answer
should be but I just point out the need for newer software to
indicate when you change bands in the logbook every time.
The idea of 6 changes per hour leads to more analysis in the logging
and here we assume that everyone uses a computer log. Bringing into
play a rule change like this would make it almost mandatory that
computer logging with the ablity to monitor the number of changes in
the last hour be used. Even those with computer logging would still
need a new update. As I'm one version behind the current one marketed
I'm stuck as I couldn't expect the author to rewrite for the prior
version also.
Personally I've never been in favor of the attempts to place packet
spots and the use of them into a multi-operator category. To me if
you don't have someone else at the transmitter while you rest you are
still a single-op. Packet becomes no more than a tool like computer
logging, dvk's, memory keyers, etc. These are tools of the modern age
contest station.
I also resent contest sponsors declaring rules that are uneforceable
and they have no intention of enforcing. One year I listed over 100
stations using the NE Megacluster in the ARRL SS. With Sweep mugs
available lots of guys were posting their needs. Only 3 stations on
the list actually reported themselves as multiop stations. I don't
know if they really were or accepted the use of packet as the reason.
I also listed about 30 stations who repeatedly spotted themselves
asking for Q's, none of which were listed as multiop.
It seems as if only missed dupes, busted calls to delete, and the
such are what is of major concern.
I'd rather see more realistic rulemaking rather than hearing how guys
beat the intentions or just ignored violations.
____
73, Bob Reed, WB2DIN
1991 Route 37 West - Lot 109
Toms River, New Jersey 08757
Internet : hwdx09a@prodigy.com
wb2din@juno.com
Packet : wb2din@wt3v.nj
********* NOTE THE NEW ADDRESS *********
|