> This shows call, grid square, QSO points made, QSOs, number of grids worked --
> sure, grid squares aren't part of the score, but the info is
> intersting! -- hours of on-time, power level, best antenna, height of
> antenna in feet, p or np for packet or no packet, number of operators,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hi,
may I suggest to put the antenna height in saxonian ellbow?? Do you really
want to use your feet for measurement in 21th century?? I prefer to use'em
for walking....
...and now something completely different...
bye, Waldek DL7ANQ && SO6ANQ
>From alan@ES.COM (Alan Brubaker) Tue Aug 20 14:42:28 1996
From: alan@ES.COM (Alan Brubaker) (Alan Brubaker)
Subject: Utah Centennial QSO Party announcement
Message-ID: <199608201342.HAA18704@greely.corp.es.com>
Utah Centennial QSO Party - Utah celebrates its 100th anniversary!
Object: Stations outside of Utah work as many Utah stations in as
many Utah counties as possible. Stations in Utah work anyone.
Time: 1500Z Aug. 24 (0900 MDT) - 2100Z Aug. 25 (1500 MDT).
Maximum operation: 24 hours out of the 30 hour period. Minimum
off time is 30 minutes and must be shown clearly in the log.
Frequencies:
160 through 2 meters excluding 30, 17 and 12 meters. Phone:
1850, 3850, 7230, 14250, 21300, 28450, 50130 and 147.540 MHz.
Try 2 meters at 2000Z, 0000Z and 0400Z. Try 10 meters at 1900Z
and 160 meters at 0500Z. CW: 1810, 3550, 7050, 14050, 21050 and
28050. Try CW on the half-hour.
Exchange: Utah stations send QSO number, name and county. Stations
outside Utah send QSO number, name and state or province. DX
stations send QSO number and name.
Entry Classes:
Fixed, Mobile, Portable Single Operator, Portable Multi-
operator. One signal transmitted at a time and all QSOs must
be simplex.
QSO points:
QSOs with any fixed stations: Phone, 2 points; CW, 4 points.
QSOs with Utah Mobile or Portable stations: Phone, 4 points;
CW, 8 points. If a Utah Mobile or Portable station moves to
another county, that station may be worked again for QSO
point and multiplier credit.
Multipliers:
Utah stations: Count states (48), provinces (13) and CQWW
countries per band. Count Utah as a state, but do not count
Utah counties.
Other stations: Count Utah counties (29) per band.
The same station can be worked again on each band and mode
for QSO points and multiplier credit.
Here is a list of the 29 Utah counties and 4 letter
abbreviations which may be used on CW:
BEVR Beaver BOXL Box Elder CASH Cache
CRBN Carbon DAGT Daggett DAVS Davis
DCHN Duchesne EMRY Emery GFLD Garfield
GRND Grand IRON Iron JUAB Juab
KANE Kane MLRD Millard MRGN Morgan
PIUT Piute RICH Rich SLCO Salt Lake
SAJN San Juan SNPT Sanpete SEVR Sevier
SUMT Summit TOLE Tooele UNTA Uintah
UTAH Utah WSCH Wasatch WASH Washington
WANE Wayne WEBR Weber
Scoring: The claimed score will be total QSO points multiplied by
the total multipliers.
Entries: Must be postmarked no later than October 15, 1996. Logs may be
submitted to:
UCQP c/o AH3C
2150 East 6200 South
Salt Lake City UT 84121
or via e-mail to:
alan@es.com
If diskettes are submitted, please label each diskette with
call and county/state/province or country. Include a hard-copy
summary sheet. A one dollar donation to help defray the cost of
printing and mailing the results and awards will be appreciated,
but is not required. Log and summary sheets may be obtained by
sending a business sized SASE to AH3C at the address above.
Awards: A minimum of 50 QSOs is required to qualify for an award. The
high scoring entries from within Utah and from outside of Utah
will each receive the Utah Centennial QSO Party Championship
Trophy. The top 5 scoring stations from within Utah and from
outside Utah will each receive a Utah Beehive Honey Jar. Top
scoring entries from each Utah county, state, province and
country will each receive a Utah Centennial QSO Party
certificate. Other special awards may be made to selected entries
as determined by the contest committee. Decisions of the contest
committee will be final.
Operating hints:
The last six hours of the contest are a must. Roving mobile
stations will be on the air to assure that the rarest Utah
counties will be active. DX stations, try 20 meters!
>From k5na@bga.com (Richard L. King) Tue Aug 20 15:46:22 1996
From: k5na@bga.com (Richard L. King) (Richard L. King)
Subject: New 160M contest, my view
Message-ID: <199608201446.JAA11137@zoom.bga.com>
>My $0.02:
>
>First, I think this should be thought more of as an "activity weekend"
>rather than a contest. Activity begins at 12Z Saturday, runs for 24
>hours, no mandatory offtime. This means Japan gets to bed at a decent
>hour Sunday night.
12Z is a terrible time to start a 160M contest because that is sunrise
across much of the USA. That means you ruin the sunrise peak for a lot of
people on both mornings. Pick a start time that has sunrise or sunset at an
area of the earth with minimum population.
Also, the term of an "operating activity" is a real turn-off. Call it that
and you will lose participation.
>If this were ever to become a real contest with DX participation, why
>should we make RZ1OWA (or whatever they are called these days) turn
>off the radio for eight hours when the band is open? They ain't gonna
>be seeing a lot of daylight there the week after Christmas. Besides,
>it's an activity weekend, not a non-activity weekend.
On the other hand, why do we give him 24 hours of operating time and give an
LU station only 8-10 hours of good operating time.
>The activity must be a multiple of 24 hours, otherwise it is unbalanced
>for the participants. If conditions happen to be bad during the 24
>hour period, then it's bad luck. Single band contests have no business
>being more than 24 hours long.
There is good news and bad news here. The good news is that the contest
should be a multiple of 24 hours. I agree.
The bad news is the statement that single-band contests have no business of
being more than 24 hours. Why is that? I am prepared to debate that point at
length. I suspect I know why many people may feel that way. And that is they
enjoy operating a contest a LOT LESS than they enjoy finishing high in the
standings; getting the respect and esteem that a high finish brings.
Therefore, shorter contests are more their thing.
>o Exchange is simply four letter grid designation, no RST, no anything else.
>o No multipliers.
>o QSO points based strictly on distance relative to grid centers.
I have nothing against this exchange, but thought about the difficulties of
making this contest truely a world-wide affair has brought a question to
mind. Since it is very difficult to exchange information but not as
difficult to make a 160M QSO, perhaps just an RST would be good. That would
encourage more people around the world to participate. Maybe the exchange
should be just 5NN. I know, I know, that will screw up the distance
calculations and we already have a contest almost like that (CQ 160). I
withdraw the suggestion.
>All scoring will be computerized. Anyone who wants their score
>published will provide their log in machine-readable form, preferably
>via email. All other logs will be considered checklogs. The log
>checking and scoring program will use its own database to compute
>QSO points. The grid square you log will be ignored in calculation
>of the official score.
This is the wave of the future. Granted, you will lose a high percentage of
log submissions because of ONLY computerized logging. But how can you tell
if an operating strategy is working if you have no idea of your score until
the log checking software assigns it. I think the computer age is taking a
step backwards if my PC score doesn't have a reasonable chance to be equal
to my final score (depending on my ability, of course). If I have to copy a
grid square, why can't I use it?
>o CW only. No SSB weekend.
I agree 100 percent.
>Why torture ourselves with another SSB contest? Why antagonize the
>pack with another SSB contest?
There aren't that many SSB contests on 160 meters, but they are a lot less
fun than the CW contests.
>o No extra points for low power/QRP/etc or any of this drek.
I kinda agree with this too. But an interesting point has been brought up in
this discussion. If a contest rewards a QRP station with extra QSO point
value because of the difficultly, then the station they work should get that
value also. Certainly the difficulty of the QSO is the same at both ends.
Maybe we can use this concept in another contest.
>Nor shall incentives or point multipliers be given for lame antennas,
>lack of operating skill, satellite QSOs, copying the Field Day message,
>or use of battery power. Nor shall there be top ten boxes for any of
>this stuff either. Instead, the results will be published simply as
>a long list of extensive line scores that include anything anyone can
>think to suggest, such as:
>
>OT6T AAnn 2417.3 1011 191 21.1 D g ++ 130 p 3 ON4UN,WN4KKN,DL1VJ other Flanders
Trey, I think you got kinda carried away. But I agree with you on most of
this. However, one of the most postive changes recently in contesting has
been the publishing of regional boxes. That has added interest to many
participants in less favorable areas. Any contest will always have area
imbalances no matter how hard you try to eliminate them. I think one long
list of scores is OK if your particiation is low. But if you get a lot of
logs from different parts of the world, some recognization of exceptional
efforts that don't make the world top-ten is in order.
>This shows call, grid square, QSO points made, QSOs, number of grids worked --
>sure, grid squares aren't part of the score, but the info is
>intersting! -- hours of on-time, power level, best antenna, height of
>antenna in feet, p or np for packet or no packet, number of operators,
>operator list, other stuff, name of radio club.
>
>The way you would decode the power is with a chart like this:
>
> A 2 watts or less
> B 20 watts or less
> C 200 watts or less
> D 2000 watts or less
>
>To determine the best antenna, consult a chart like this:
>
> a slinky dipole
> b somewhat less lame antenna
> c 1/4 wave sloper
> d inverted vee
> e 1/2 wave sloper
> f shunt fed tower
> g real 1/4 wave vertical
> h 2 1/4-wave verticals
> i 4 1/4-wave verticals
> - no special RX antenna
> + small loop for RX
> ++ beverages for RX
>
>The results will be published in sorted order on the basis of QSO
>points, with no top ten boxes or club scores or any of that, in
>electronic form. There will be no contest writeup. There will be
>no records officially sanctioned by the sponsors. If we can talk a
>magazine into publishing the results, they will appear in a half
>page of mouseprint, like the CD Party results in QST.
You really don't want this to be a contest, do you!
>Because the results will be in electronic form, everyone can download
>them from the net and load them into Excel or Lotus 1-2-3 and sort
>them in any fashion they wish. This means there will be a large
>number (thousands) of top ten boxes, but they will all be "virtual"
>top tens -- you have to compute them yourself! Maybe you will make
>the top ten in the world in the 20 watt category. Maybe you will be
>world high in the 200 watt slinky dipole category with packet
>assistance. Maybe your club will make the highest score of any club
>when dividing the sum of the QSOs points of the entries by the sum of
>the heights of the antennas. Maybe you will be the highest score
>station in grid area EMxx.
Trey, you have worked yourself into a freenzy.
>Printed results will be provided to all stations providing an SASE.
>Logs must be received within three weeks of the activity. Results
>will be published two weeks after the log deadline.
>
>o No trophies.
>o No certificates.
>o No mugs.
>o No plaques.
That's cool. Operate for the fun of operating?
>Since there will be over 1000 top ten boxes, it will be incumbent
>upon the contest entrant to generate his own certificates and
>trophies since this will cause an undue burden on the contest
>sponsors. Third-party sponsorship of prizes is welcomed, but
>the contest sponsor will have no specific affiliation with the
>third party sponsors. Third party results summaries, contest
>writeups (such as the nice writeups K5ZD makes in QST these days
>for the Sweepstakes), analytical writeups, and so on are welcome,
>but will have no specific affiliation with the contest sponsors
>and will not be considered part of the "official" results.
>
>--Trey, WN4KKN
That sounds OK too. But I have a small problem with any contest that gives
away prizes of monetary value. But that kind of commercialism is going on
everywhere in this country anyway. I envision the "Kenwood Sprint" and the
winner gets a new TS950SDX. I wonder if that sort of award is in our
contesting future. Maybe we will make the first step towards that with this
contest.
73, Richard
K5NA@BGA.COM
http://www.realtime.net/~k5na
>From n0dh@comtch.iea.com (Nawvemburr Zeeero Dawg House) Tue Aug 20 15:57:32
>1996
From: n0dh@comtch.iea.com (Nawvemburr Zeeero Dawg House) (Nawvemburr Zeeero
Dawg House)
Subject: new 160 test
References: <2.2.32.19960820113006.006861e4@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>
Message-ID: <3219D25C.7A59@comtch.iea.com>
John J. Bohnovic, Jr. wrote:
>
> At 02:27 AM 8/20/96 +0000, you wrote:
> >Glad I wasn't away on a trip or vacation - my contest byte bucket would be
> >overflowing by now. I'm not against contests but as practically a
> >non-contester
> >do we need another one? Why not just work dx or rag-chew? 5nn MT
> >73 Bob W7LR
> >
> >
> Bob,
>
> Just think what your byte bucket would look like if you subscribed to the
> contest reflector. It appears that the topband reflector has taken on a new
> subject..contesting.
>
> 73..de John/K8PXG in Pembroke Pines, FL where the delete key is getting a
> work out...
Ward (N0AX) said it best yeasterday. The intent here is not to put up yet
another full blown contest but rather to "prototype" a new format for replacing
one the two major 160M DX contests (ARRL or CQWW) (which is why it is running
on both reflectors). We need to keep this in perspective which is why I think
some kinda one night format is probably just right for now. Judging from the
level
of interest that it has created the topic is worthwhile ....but its probably
time
we now killed it and get on with the contest..... go for it Tree.
Dave
N0DH
dit dit
>From k7fr@ncw.net (Gary Nieborsky) Tue Aug 20 15:55:30 1996
From: k7fr@ncw.net (Gary Nieborsky) (Gary Nieborsky)
Subject: 160 meter dash (dot?)
Message-ID: <199608201455.HAA15509@bing.ncw.net>
I agree with Wards concept of a trial run to see how this new contest
flies.....I'll even extend my HK trip to give out a real DX grid on 160!
Remember what happened to the Enterprise when Scotty engaged the warp drive
without proper balancing ... wormhole time.
73 Gary K7FR
>From hwardsil@wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) Tue Aug 20 16:01:50 1996
From: hwardsil@wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) (Ward Silver)
Subject: Just a few more LP Sprinters!
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.960820080032.417F-100000@gonzo.wolfenet.com>
We're only six shy of two full teams. To join the Watt-Me-Worry teams,
drop me an email. Low-power Sprinters, to the battlements...whatever they
are!
73, Ward N0AX
>From davep@mylexboulder.com (David Palmer) Tue Aug 20 16:40:40 1996
From: davep@mylexboulder.com (David Palmer) (David Palmer)
Subject: New 160M contest, WN4KKN view
Message-ID: <3219DC78.2AA3@mylexboulder.com>
Trey, WN4KKN writes:
> The log
> checking and scoring program will use its own database
> to compute QSO points. The grid square you log
> will be ignored in calculation of the official score.
The idea of maintaining a master QTH database for any possible
participant seems like a lot of work for the contest administrators.
That seems counter to the rest of your proposal (no certificates,
no writeup, etc.) which are geared toward *low* maintenance for
contest sponsors.
People move. People go portable for contests (I went to Wyoming
for SS twice--its great fun!). People operate other people's stations
but use their home call. I don't see what is saved by
having a master database as opposed to just parsing what was in
the electronic log and using that. But if participants have a way
to update the master database via email or via their own log submission,
then that'll work.
But I agree with the other parts in your posting: it would be
cool to have the antenna descriptions (tx and rx) of the stations
for comparison.
I vote for:
CW only;
4-character grid squares;
NO RST Unless: you are allowed to send a maximum of 10 599 reports
per contest--grading on the curve!! Put an end to signal report
inflation!
Don't care about contest length because I won't operate
the whole time, no matter how short, due to other committments, so
the event may as well be long so I can bop in occasionally and work
some "Q"s.
Sounds like fun!
73,
Dave Palmer, N6KL / davep@mylexboulder.com / 73357.3157@compuserve.com
* I'd rather be surfing the ionosphere *
PS: Tom, NM1Q mentions ZIP codes...there used to be a ZIP code contest...
Your QSO points were the last two digits of the 5 digit code... The IBM ARC
station in San Jose is in 95193--great QTH for that! ZIPs might be fun
for some domestic contests but as was pointed out, not well suited for this
particular 160 proposal.
PPS: When this contest is figured out, maybe it is time to bring contesting
to the LOWFER band at 160-190 kHz??! THAT would be almost WRTC like with
respect to station equalization: everyone at 1 watt output into a 50' long
antenna. Ouch!
>From w9cf@ptolemy.la.asu.edu (Kevin E. Schmidt) Tue Aug 20 17:46:40 1996
From: w9cf@ptolemy.la.asu.edu (Kevin E. Schmidt) (Kevin E. Schmidt)
Subject: SS rules interpretation
Message-ID: <9608201646.AA02209@ptolemy.la.asu.edu>
For the CW SS, I would like to operate in the multioperator category
with my daughter. She has her novice license and would also like to
use the contest to boost her worked all states total. Our problem is
with the rule 6:
6) Miscellaneous
(A) A transmitter used to contact one or more
stations may not be subsequently be used under any other
call during the contest period (with the exception of family
stations).
(B) One operator may not use more than one call
sign from any given location during the contest period.
To be legal with both the contest rules and the FCC rules and allow her
to work some new states in the novice bands, we can operate using her
call sign, KC7FWM. When we are in the novice bands (when she is
operating and control op) she can sign KC7FWM but when we're outside
the novice bands I must be the control op and the FCC says we must sign
KC7FWM/W9CF. I assume that this would either fall under the family
exemption or be considered to be using only one call sign (your dupe
checker may not agree). I'm glad I'm not the one who has to copy
that call.
Alternatively, we can multiop using W9CF. If she hears some new states
in the novice band she can work them using KC7FWM and violate rule
6(B). If we do this, and submit her KC7FWM log as a check log only, are
we still considered to be in violation of rule 6(B) so that I would be
unable to sign the usual statement about following FCC and contest
rules?
I assume that the first solution is what must be done, but I would
welcome other legal suggestions. Ignoring the rules and realizing that
we wouldn't get caught is not an option.
Thanks and 73, Kevin w9cf@ptolemy.la.asu.edu
=-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Schmidt w9cf@ptolemy.la.asu.edu
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1504
(602) 965-8240
(602) 965-7954 (FAX)
>From David_B_Curtis@ccm.sc.intel.com (David B Curtis) Tue Aug 20 17:33:00 1996
From: David_B_Curtis@ccm.sc.intel.com (David B Curtis) (David B Curtis)
Subject: Gophers Go Fer Lowfer! (was: 160M contest, WN4KKN view)
Message-ID: <Tue, 20 Aug 96 10:19:46 PDT_4@ccm.hf.intel.com>
de n6kl:
> PPS: When this contest is figured out, maybe it is time to bring contesting
> to the LOWFER band at 160-190 kHz??!
Yes, yes! Maybe *then* people would stop referring to me as "that VHF
contester.."
73, Dave NG0X, CM87xi, VHF rover, (and Golden Gopher M.S.E.E.)
(not a loafer, a Lowfer Gopher!)
>From sawyers@cacd.rockwell.com (sawyers) Tue Aug 20 18:01:23 1996
From: sawyers@cacd.rockwell.com (sawyers) (sawyers)
Subject: Turning 2 antennas with one TIC
Message-ID: <9607208405.AA840561867@ccmgw1.cacd.rockwell.com>
I would suggest that you build a bracket that places one above the TIC ring
and one below it. You want to balance the wind load times the distance to
the TIC for the top and bottom antennas to take the twisting and bending
moments off the TIC ring.
de n0yvy steve
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Turning 2 antennas with one TIC
Author: k2wk@crystal.palace.net (Walt Kornienko) at ccmgw1
Hey all!
Can two antennas be turned with a single TIC
ring rotator? I envision mounting a 205CA in
the cradle and a 40-2CD 10' below the 205.
If you have done this, or knwo how to do it,
PLEASE respond via e-mail. 73 & thanx for
taking the time to read this.
*****************************************************************
* *
* 73 de Walt Kornienko - K2WK (FRC) *
* *
* k2wk@crystal.palace.net or K2WK@N2BIM.NJ.NOAM *
* Snail: 52 Sunset Inn Rd Lafayette, NJ 07848 *
* 201-579-1966 (machine) or 201-579-3660 (shack) *
* *
* "You are today where your thoughts have brought you." *
* -author unknown *
* *
*****************************************************************
>From tree@lady.axian.com (Larry Tyree) Tue Aug 20 18:43:36 1996
From: tree@lady.axian.com (Larry Tyree) (Larry Tyree)
Subject: SS rules interpretation
Message-ID: <199608201743.KAA07523@lady.axian.com>
Wow - some great issues here:
> For the CW SS, I would like to operate in the multioperator category
> with my daughter. She has her novice license and would also like to
> use the contest to boost her worked all states total. Our problem is
> with the rule 6:
>
> 6) Miscellaneous
> (A) A transmitter used to contact one or more
> stations may not be subsequently be used under any other
> call during the contest period (with the exception of family
> stations).
> (B) One operator may not use more than one call
> sign from any given location during the contest period.
Yes, the real problem is rule B. The INTENT of this rule is to prevent
someone from giving out multiple contacts with different callsigns, and
in a sense does apply to your situation. It clearly prevents an operator
from being a part of two operations from the same location.
> To be legal with both the contest rules and the FCC rules and allow her
> to work some new states in the novice bands, we can operate using her
> call sign, KC7FWM. When we are in the novice bands (when she is
> operating and control op) she can sign KC7FWM but when we're outside
> the novice bands I must be the control op and the FCC says we must sign
> KC7FWM/W9CF. I assume that this would either fall under the family
> exemption or be considered to be using only one call sign (your dupe
> checker may not agree). I'm glad I'm not the one who has to copy
> that call.
Yes, you can do that!!
> Alternatively, we can multiop using W9CF. If she hears some new states
> in the novice band she can work them using KC7FWM and violate rule
> 6(B). If we do this, and submit her KC7FWM log as a check log only, are
> we still considered to be in violation of rule 6(B) so that I would be
> unable to sign the usual statement about following FCC and contest
> rules?
Technically, even if you don't submit a log at all, you are in violation
of rule 6B.
> I assume that the first solution is what must be done, but I would
> welcome other legal suggestions. Ignoring the rules and realizing that
> we wouldn't get caught is not an option.
Certainly nobody is going to be upset if your daughter works a few
new states with her own call. However, as a parent, I understand that
setting a good example is important.
The only other option I can see is for both of you to do separate
single operator entries.
Good luck!
Tree N6TR
tree@contesting.com
>From tree@lady.axian.com (Larry Tyree) Tue Aug 20 19:20:42 1996
From: tree@lady.axian.com (Larry Tyree) (Larry Tyree)
Subject: New 160 contest rules are coming soon
Message-ID: <199608201820.LAA07812@lady.axian.com>
Someone mentioned we have enough input - this is true.
Bill and I are working on the details of the rules and will post them
shortly. The time for comments has passed, so please hold off for
now.
Remember, this is a prototype and we are trying a few different things
to see how they work. For some of tough calls, I decided to use something
Liz Taylor (I think that is who) came up with:
"When deciding between two evils, I generally pick the one that I haven't
done before."
I am sorry we can't package all of the good ideas into one contest.
Please don't give up on them. Let's give it a run and then analyze
what worked and what didn't and then improve it.
I would also like to thank the non contesters on the topband refelctor
who put up with us for 5 days. The traffic that my idea generated
far exceeded my wildest imagination!
Now for the long wait until the actual contest.
73 Tree N6TR
tree@contesting.com
>From k0wa@southwind.net (Lee Buller) Tue Aug 20 19:28:54 1996
From: k0wa@southwind.net (Lee Buller) (Lee Buller)
Subject: AL80A/AL80B
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19960820182854.00698b90@southwind.net>
Ladies and Gentlemen....
Can those of your who are more "learned" than I tell me the difference
between the AL80A and the AL80B? Can the upgrades in the AL80B be
incorporated into the AL80A?
All in all...I think that buying a pristine AL80A this weekend at the local
hamfest for $600 was well worth it since it had less than an hours worth of
time on the amp. The guy didn't like it an shelved it since 1990! The amp
started OK, but the transformer surely BANGED when I turned it on. Didn't
do that the second and third times..etc..etc...
Thanks for the information guys and gals....
Lee Buller
k0wa@southwind.net
"Kick the tires and light the fires...we're looking for multipliers"
>From jfunk@adams.net (jim funk) Tue Aug 20 19:39:54 1996
From: jfunk@adams.net (jim funk) (jim funk)
Subject: NAQP M/2's
Message-ID: <9608201839.AA23421@golden.adams.net>
Greetings!
What is the rule, or the consensus, regarding what name is used in
NAQP for the M/2 stations? Settle on one name or everybody use his own?
73, Jim N9JF
"The cow is of the bovine ilk. One end is moo; the other, milk.--Ogden Nash
>From jfunk@adams.net (jim funk) Tue Aug 20 19:41:00 1996
From: jfunk@adams.net (jim funk) (jim funk)
Subject: TopBand: New contest
Message-ID: <9608201841.AA22726@golden.adams.net>
>To: Gary Schwartz <garyk9gs@solaria.sol.net>
>From: jfunk@adams.net (jim funk)
>Subject: Re: TopBand: New contest
>
>>On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, Brian Beezley wrote:
>
>>> If a guy you work doesn't know his grid, here are some suggestions:
>>>
>>> 1. Ask for his QTH.
>>>
>and Gary Schwartz wrote:
>>If the rules of the contest state that you must exchange the grid square,
>>then working someone that is not in the contest and that does not send his
>>GS does not constitute a valid contact and is cheating. Looking up the GS
>>after the contest further compounds the problem. You did not make a valid
>>contest QSO.
>>
>
>Gentlemen (and Gentlewomen): In all the intensely interesting discussion
I'm not sure I've seen the following proposal:
>
> Ask for his QTH. With grid map and atlas in hand,or by any other
available means, determine *as nearly as possible* what his grid would be.
Tell him, let him confirm it to you (now you've copied it, right?), and then
he'll know for the next QSO, and the next.... I know, this takes time out
from your 150/hr run. Sorry about that. I've used this system in VHF
contests with the casuals, and they invariably appreciate your time and
effort. The difference is that you send a casual away feeling good, you get
a valid contact, and you help bring him back for the next time. He might
even feel better toward contesters in general. BTW, my gut feeling is that
the Europeans will be more likely to know their grids than the US, so don't
worry too much about having to tell them.
> 73, Jim N9JF
>
"The cow is of the bovine ilk. One end is moo; the other, milk.--Ogden Nash
>From wb7dhc@nwlink.com (Jim Aguirre) Tue Aug 20 20:21:53 1996
From: wb7dhc@nwlink.com (Jim Aguirre) (Jim Aguirre)
Subject: SS rules interpretation
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.960820121909.11810A-100000@washington>
Isn't it unfortunate that we now have to hinder young people entering
Amateur Radio with restrictive rules designed to keep people from cheating
in contests? It's especially unfortunate in this case, where the young
operator WANTS TO WORK CW!
Maybe it's time we rethought the whole concept of contesting!
On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Larry Tyree wrote:
>
> Wow - some great issues here:
>
> > For the CW SS, I would like to operate in the multioperator category
> > with my daughter. She has her novice license and would also like to
> > use the contest to boost her worked all states total. Our problem is
> > with the rule 6:
> >
> > 6) Miscellaneous
> > (A) A transmitter used to contact one or more
> > stations may not be subsequently be used under any other
> > call during the contest period (with the exception of family
> > stations).
> > (B) One operator may not use more than one call
> > sign from any given location during the contest period.
>
> Yes, the real problem is rule B. The INTENT of this rule is to prevent
> someone from giving out multiple contacts with different callsigns, and
> in a sense does apply to your situation. It clearly prevents an operator
> from being a part of two operations from the same location.
>
> > To be legal with both the contest rules and the FCC rules and allow her
> > to work some new states in the novice bands, we can operate using her
> > call sign, KC7FWM. When we are in the novice bands (when she is
> > operating and control op) she can sign KC7FWM but when we're outside
> > the novice bands I must be the control op and the FCC says we must sign
> > KC7FWM/W9CF. I assume that this would either fall under the family
> > exemption or be considered to be using only one call sign (your dupe
> > checker may not agree). I'm glad I'm not the one who has to copy
> > that call.
>
> Yes, you can do that!!
>
> > Alternatively, we can multiop using W9CF. If she hears some new states
> > in the novice band she can work them using KC7FWM and violate rule
> > 6(B). If we do this, and submit her KC7FWM log as a check log only, are
> > we still considered to be in violation of rule 6(B) so that I would be
> > unable to sign the usual statement about following FCC and contest
> > rules?
>
> Technically, even if you don't submit a log at all, you are in violation
> of rule 6B.
>
> > I assume that the first solution is what must be done, but I would
> > welcome other legal suggestions. Ignoring the rules and realizing that
> > we wouldn't get caught is not an option.
>
> Certainly nobody is going to be upset if your daughter works a few
> new states with her own call. However, as a parent, I understand that
> setting a good example is important.
>
> The only other option I can see is for both of you to do separate
> single operator entries.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Tree N6TR
> tree@contesting.com
>
>From k6ll@juno.com (David O. Hachadorian) Wed Aug 21 04:30:48 1996
From: k6ll@juno.com (David O. Hachadorian) (David O. Hachadorian)
Subject: SS rules interpretation
References: <9608201646.AA02209@ptolemy.la.asu.edu>
Message-ID: <19960820.193347.4911.0.k6ll@juno.com>
On Tue, 20 Aug 96 09:46:40 -0700 w9cf@ptolemy.la.asu.edu (Kevin E.
Schmidt) writes:
>
>
>For the CW SS, I would like to operate in the multioperator category
>with my daughter. She has her novice license and would also like to
>use the contest to boost her worked all states total. Our problem is
>with the rule 6:
>
> 6) Miscellaneous
> (A) A transmitter used to contact one or more
> stations may not be subsequently be used under any other
> call during the contest period (with the exception of family
> stations).
> (B) One operator may not use more than one call
> sign from any given location during the contest period.
>
>
>To be legal with both the contest rules and the FCC rules and allow
>her
>to work some new states in the novice bands, we can operate using her
>call sign, KC7FWM. When we are in the novice bands (when she is
>operating and control op) she can sign KC7FWM but when we're outside
>the novice bands I must be the control op and the FCC says we must
>sign
>KC7FWM/W9CF. I assume that this would either fall under the family
>exemption or be considered to be using only one call sign (your dupe
>checker may not agree). I'm glad I'm not the one who has to copy
>that call.
>
>Alternatively, we can multiop using W9CF. If she hears some new states
>in the novice band she can work them using KC7FWM and violate rule
>6(B). If we do this, and submit her KC7FWM log as a check log only,
>are
>we still considered to be in violation of rule 6(B) so that I would be
>unable to sign the usual statement about following FCC and contest
>rules?
>
>I assume that the first solution is what must be done, but I would
>welcome other legal suggestions. Ignoring the rules and realizing that
>we wouldn't get caught is not an option.
>
>Thanks and 73, Kevin w9cf@ptolemy.la.asu.edu
>=-------------------------------------------------------------
>Kevin Schmidt w9cf@ptolemy.la.asu.edu
>Department of Physics and Astronomy
>Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1504
>(602) 965-8240
>(602) 965-7954 (FAX)
>
>
Rule 6B was added about 22 years ago, after I operated
as both WA6WZN and WA6WZO in one SS contest. They are
husband and wife, but I am not a member of the family.
I had a pretty good score under both callsigns, and it
contributed greatly to our club score, which irritated
a lot of other clubs. It also caused a lot of on the air
confusion, since the calls are so similar. I also got
a note from the ARRL, curious as to how I could have
operated 40 hours in a 30 hour contest. (Sometimes the
clock was running simultaneously under both calls.)
Rule 6B was added for SS the following year!
I know this doesn't answer your question directly, but
it shows the intent of rule 6B at the time it was added,
and makes kind of an interesting story. 73.
Dave, K6LL
k6ll@juno.com
>From kr2j@ix.netcom.com (Robert E. Naumann) Tue Aug 20 19:46:10 1996
From: kr2j@ix.netcom.com (Robert E. Naumann) (Robert E. Naumann)
Subject: SS rules interpretation
Message-ID: <01BB8EA7.21995480@dfw-tx9-02.ix.netcom.com>
In my opinion, operate in the way you and she think you'll have the most fun!
Unless your goal is to actually win something, don't worry about the rules. Of
course, submit your log(s) as a check log.
73,
KR2J/5
>From kr2j@ix.netcom.com (Robert E. Naumann) Tue Aug 20 19:02:50 1996
From: kr2j@ix.netcom.com (Robert E. Naumann) (Robert E. Naumann)
Subject: Grid Square Unknown
Message-ID: <01BB8EA7.164DCA20@dfw-tx9-02.ix.netcom.com>
>>Tree's idea is that if a guy passes you anything but a grid square then
you get the minimum QSO points possible regardless of the guy's QTH. I
like this idea because it doesn't put a tremendous amount of preasure on
anyone to find out the guys true grid square. <<
How about publicizing it in advance and hopefully making people aware of
Grid Squares and how to determine their own. It's pretty easy if you know
where you are (lat and long).
How about it ? Maybe get CQ and QST to publish the technique ? Watsay AR
? Billy ? (NCJ and CQ Contest too!)
KR2J/5 (GD)
>From kr2j@ix.netcom.com (Robert E. Naumann) Tue Aug 20 20:08:31 1996
From: kr2j@ix.netcom.com (Robert E. Naumann) (Robert E. Naumann)
Subject: TopBand: New contest
Message-ID: <01BB8EA7.241D4040@dfw-tx9-02.ix.netcom.com>
" I vote for four-character grid squares, just like on VHF. The trailing
digits will separate the men from the boys on those long 160m fades."
I agree with this, and also like VHF, there's no reason for a sophisticated
distance measuring thing in the contest. By virtue of working more grid
squares, you have worked more distances.
I think those of us who take computers as a given (especially here in the
U.S.)
should also keep in mind that a lot of operators do not have computers and
some do not like to use computers. I see no benefit in precluding the
non-computer types from participating in this contest.
I do not see the benefit of the distance calculation being included unless
we want to give those guys in the Northeast another advantage where they'll
work all those long distance Europeans.
I know a lot of you think I'm kidding about this NorthEast thing, but with
grid squares, you eliminate a lot of the geographic advantage of the East
coast. For example, to the East and NorthEast of me here in EM** is a
whole load af grid squares with population in them. For someone in Maine,
his nearest East or NorthEast grid with population is somewhere in Europe.
It appears to me that this would really level the playing field.
KR2J/5
>From rjohnson@server.nlbbs.com (Roger D. Johnson) Tue Aug 20 20:16:43 1996
From: rjohnson@server.nlbbs.com (Roger D. Johnson) (Roger D. Johnson)
Subject: FAA and towers
Message-ID: <321A0F1B.B3@server.nlbbs.com>
I need to know the FAR dealing with towers vs airports. Is there a
Website with this info?
Roger AD1G
>From n0dh@comtch.iea.com (Nawvemburr Zeeero Dawg House) Tue Aug 20 22:12:54
>1996
From: n0dh@comtch.iea.com (Nawvemburr Zeeero Dawg House) (Nawvemburr Zeeero
Dawg House)
Subject: Grid Square contests (Old and New)
Message-ID: <321A2A56.5A60@comtch.iea.com>
Ok Guys
If all this talk about grid squares hasn't got your contest blood
stirred up enough , I notice that from my trusty July/Aug NCJ that
this coming weekend is a perfect chance to practice handing out your
grid square because the TOEC WW Grid Contest/CW is shown as the 24th
and 25th of August.
Somebody point us where we all might find the detailed rules???
Dave
N0Dh
dit dit
>From nl7gp@alaska.net (Jonathan Kimball) Tue Aug 20 22:45:36 1996
From: nl7gp@alaska.net (Jonathan Kimball) (Jonathan Kimball)
Subject: Contesters in Japan !
Message-ID: <321A3200.7E68@alaska.net>
Hello all from Alaska...
I am searching for any : List of Contesters in Japan
E-mail address lists anywhere on the net?
List of contact info of any kind.
Also any ideas for internet providers in Tokyo? I hear it can be done.
Thanks all, cu in the piles from the far east... de JON NL7GP
>From fcm@ai2a.net (Ed Jackson Fellowship of Christiannn Ministers) Tue Aug 20
>23:46:02 1996
From: fcm@ai2a.net (Ed Jackson Fellowship of Christiannn Ministers) (Ed Jackson
Fellowship of Christiannn Ministers)
Subject: QSL Address
Message-ID: <199608202246.RAA10540@ai2a.net>
Greetings:
Last week I worked a station signing US1R on 30 meters while I was on
vacation in South Carolina.
Not real good conditions and did not get an address.
Does anyone have one?
Thanks in advance.
Ed Jackson, W8WJ
fcm@ai2a.net
Ed Jackson, CIC, CPCU
fcm@ai2a.net
W8WJ
Psalm 37:4-5
>From kg5u@hal-pc.org (Dale Martin) Wed Aug 21 00:08:53 1996
From: kg5u@hal-pc.org (Dale Martin) (Dale Martin)
Subject: Grid Square contests (Old and New)
Message-ID: <01BB8EC2.AE1DAA80@pm1-72.hal-pc.org>
Dave and all others on the reflector:
Check out these pages:
LA9HW Main Page: http://home.sn.no/~janalme/hammain.html
August Contests: http://home.sn.no/~janalme/august.html
TOEC Contest Rules: http://home.sn.no/~janalme/rules/toecgrid.txt
TOEC Home Page: http://www.itz.se/jonit/toec/
73,
Dale
kg5u
----------
From: Nawvemburr Zeeero Dawg House[SMTP:n0dh@comtch.iea.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 1996 16:12 PM
To: cq-contest@tgv.com
Subject: Grid Square contests (Old and New)
Ok Guys
If all this talk about grid squares hasn't got your contest blood
stirred up enough , I notice that from my trusty July/Aug NCJ that
this coming weekend is a perfect chance to practice handing out your
grid square because the TOEC WW Grid Contest/CW is shown as the 24th
and 25th of August.
Somebody point us where we all might find the detailed rules???
Dave
N0Dh
dit dit
>From w5robert@blkbox.COM (Robert) Wed Aug 21 01:22:50 1996
From: w5robert@blkbox.COM (Robert) (Robert)
Subject: CQ WW
Message-ID: <9608201922.aa26923@blkbox.COM>
1. I would like to "add-on" to FOX's
which amp is better for traveling? It's been two yrs now.
direct to me or whatever and I will summarize for reflector
and FOX. Is there anything better than the old MLA2500??
2. Mods for the MLA2500. Someone once mentioned the 2500
was not tooo effiecent. Hw does one improve that?
3. CQ WW travel. Airline flights for Oct. are filling up
to the Caribbean. Call now.
--
73 Robert WB5CRG w5robert@blkbox.com
>From aa8u@voyager.net (AA8U) Wed Aug 21 02:01:36 1996
From: aa8u@voyager.net (AA8U) (AA8U)
Subject: 9600 Packet
Message-ID: <199608210101.VAA29174@vixa.voyager.net>
I seek assistance.....
I have a Kenwood TM-733A Dual Band 144/440 radio and a Kantronics KPC-9612.
Both are new, only the manuals have been opened.
Can anyone tell me how to configure the cable between the radio data port
and the 9612?
I would like to be able to use the 2m 1200 baud as a backup, and the 9600
baud on the local 440 link.
The local node has a user frequency on 2m and 440. If this node chokes in a
CONTEST I need to have the capability of connecting to another node in the
area that only has a 2m 1200 baud input that I can get to.
The 9612 has a port for 1200 baud, DB-9, and a port for 9600 baud, DB-15.
The radio has a data port, 6 pin mini-DIN, that can handle either. I hope I
don't have to have an external A-B switch, but the way I interpret the
wiring instructions this may be required. Maybe I am missing something.
Thanks in advance for your advice.
73,
Bruce
aa8u@voyager.net
>From merchant@silcom.com (Stephen Merchant) Wed Aug 21 02:04:03 1996
From: merchant@silcom.com (Stephen Merchant) (Stephen Merchant)
Subject: NAQP M/2's
Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960820180402.23f72110@silcom.com>
Jim: if you used more than one name in your M2 we require you to show which
name was used for which QSO throughout your log. Sometimes this makes using
one name for all contacts a somewhat easier choice, hi,
73, Steve W6EMS
merchant@silcom.com
At 01:39 PM 8/20/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Greetings!
> What is the rule, or the consensus, regarding what name is used in
>NAQP for the M/2 stations? Settle on one name or everybody use his own?
> 73, Jim N9JF
>"The cow is of the bovine ilk. One end is moo; the other, milk.--Ogden Nash
>
>
>
|