Hi Dave. Interesting question: I am using wav files to do exactly that. I
have a program that I wrote a few years ago in both dos and windows versions
to do the logging for CQP,. SS and WPX contests. Last year I added voice
keying to the windows version (written in VB2). I have the program send
cq's, etc and also exchanges and callsigns. The latter is done by piecing
together wav files, then playing them through a soundblaster card. I take
the output directly into the phonepatch input on the TX.
There's some programming effort involved in getting the wav files to play
properly without time gaps, and there's quite a bit of art in recording them
so they sound ok together. If you want to hear it, hopefully I'll be on CQP
in a few weeks using the program (I say hopefully because my trial schedule
may interfere).
73, andy, ae6y
>From aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman) Wed Sep 18 17:18:57 1996
From: aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman) (Bill Coleman)
Subject: Sprint - Ethical Question -Reply
Message-ID: <960818121633.MAB15147@gate.iterated.com>
>From: James E Brown, James_E_Brown@smtp.ord.usace.army.mil
>
>There are no ethics involved here.
Sure there is.
>How would you have this contest if no one called qrz or cq?
I never suggested this.
> Even just dropping your call would be equivalent of qrz.
Agreed. This is what often happens, and has spawned the convention
(especially on CW) of having the "leaving" station give his call before
the exchange, and the "remaining" station give his call after.
>There was no "sitting on a fequency and
>caling cq", since that was permitted for only one q, and I didn't hear
>anyone violating that.
Right, but this fellow might have worked three stations on the same
frequency, all within the letter of the rules.
Bill Coleman, AA4LR Mail: aa4lr@radio.org
Quote: "Not in a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>From thompson@mindspring.com (David L. Thompson) Wed Sep 18 16:38:49 1996
From: thompson@mindspring.com (David L. Thompson) (David L. Thompson)
Subject: 1995 CQ 160 Corrections to Post
Message-ID: <199609181626.MAA12227@answerman.mindspring.com>
Here are the corrections to the results for the 1995 CQ WW 160 Contests.
KD9SV should be listed as Single Operator on SSB not Multi-Operator.
Gary
thus
becomes the Indiana Winner and places 5th in the USA on Single Operator
SSB.
Two scoring mistakes were found: AA1AA's SSB Single Operator score is
corrected to 212,520. John remains the Zone 5 Plaque Winner. K4TO's CW
Single Operator score is corrected to 114,986. He
continues as the Kentucky Winner and 6th place USA Low
Power.
Two errors were noted in certificate winners: KR4DL is the Low Power CW
Winner for
Georgia. W4YDD should not be listed as a winner (bold print) for South
Carolina Single Operator CW.
Dave K4JRB
CQ WW 160 Contests Director
>From tree@lady.axian.com (Larry Tyree) Wed Sep 18 18:14:25 1996
From: tree@lady.axian.com (Larry Tyree) (Larry Tyree)
Subject: Definition of solicitation
Message-ID: <199609181714.KAA21446@lady.axian.com>
I don't know who it was who thought they weren't solicitating a QSO because
they didn't send anything after finishing a QSO, but if I did, I will tell
them to wise up.
They obviously don't understand the sprint concept and the rhythm of the
contest.
If you call someone and establish a QSO with them, you will often get called
by people without any furthur action once the QSO is complete. So, it
follows logically that the act of finishing that QSO is solicitating another
QSO. Otherwise, why are all these people calling?
I HOPE we don't have to put something like this in the rules. This is
silly!!!
Tree N6TR
tree@contesting.com
>From foggie@dtx.net (foggie) Wed Sep 18 18:41:06 1996
From: foggie@dtx.net (foggie) (foggie)
Subject: Definition of solicitation
Message-ID: <XFMail.960918174557.foggie@dtx.net>
On 18-Sep-96 tree@lady.axian.com wrote:
>>
>I don't know who it was who thought they weren't solicitating a QSO because
>they didn't send anything after finishing a QSO, but if I did, I will tell
>them to wise up.
>
>They obviously don't understand the sprint concept and the rhythm of the
>contest.
>
>If you call someone and establish a QSO with them, you will often get called
>by people without any furthur action once the QSO is complete. So, it
>follows logically that the act of finishing that QSO is solicitating another
>QSO. Otherwise, why are all these people calling?
>
>I HOPE we don't have to put something like this in the rules. This is
>silly!!!
>
:) Interestingly enough it seemed like 5 of the 15 qsos I had people wanted to
keep the freq after it. Perhaps I had a lousy sig and the ones calling the
original CQ'er couldn't hear me. It was downright aggravating knowing it was my
freq now, and hear the guy go right back to one of the callers. Rules seemed
pretty clear to me. Oh yeah, and I don't wanna talk about WHY I only had 15 Q's.
:) Silly army stuff. Can't they get their priorities right? I mean during a
contest noone should be allowed to be recalled. :)
73,
Al - kk5zx
----------------------------------
E-Mail: foggie <foggie@dtx.net>
Time: 17:41:08
This message was sent by XF-Mail
----------------------------------
>From glsalvia@capri.it (GianLuca Salvia) Wed Sep 18 21:01:42 1996
From: glsalvia@capri.it (GianLuca Salvia) (GianLuca Salvia)
Subject: 18 Mhz Yagi
Message-ID: <199609182001.VAA24227@www.caprionline.it>
I am looking for a easy project for a lightweight 2 elements yagi for 17 meters.
Thank you for any kind of help.
Luca, IC8WIC
Capri Island, Italy
Gian Luca Salvia
glsalvia@capri.it
>From aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman) Wed Sep 18 21:17:06 1996
From: aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman) (Bill Coleman)
Subject: Definition of solicitation
Message-ID: <960818161442.QAB26470@gate.iterated.com>
>From: Larry Tyree, tree@lady.axian.com
>
>I don't know who it was who thought they weren't solicitating a QSO because
>they didn't send anything after finishing a QSO, but if I did, I will tell
>them to wise up.
It is hard to argue rule issues in the middle of a contest.
>They obviously don't understand the sprint concept and the rhythm of the
>contest.
I'm not sure that was the issue here.
>If you call someone and establish a QSO with them, you will often get called
>by people without any furthur action once the QSO is complete. So, it
>follows logically that the act of finishing that QSO is solicitating another
>QSO. Otherwise, why are all these people calling?
Agreed.
>I HOPE we don't have to put something like this in the rules. This is
>silly!!!
This behavior might be limited by a simple phrase such as "no more than 2
consequitive contacts can take place on one frequency."
--
I don't think this is a problem, but it just didn't seem right to me at
the time. I'm refreshed to see there's so many out there who agree with
me.
Bill Coleman, AA4LR Mail: aa4lr@radio.org
Quote: "Not in a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>From aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman) Wed Sep 18 21:17:05 1996
From: aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman) (Bill Coleman)
Subject: Sprint - Ethical Question -Reply -Reply
Message-ID: <960818161441.QAA26470@gate.iterated.com>
>From: James E Brown, James_E_Brown@smtp.ord.usace.army.mil
>
>Sounds like we are getting closer in philosophy.
>
>Still dont see the ethical part. If the fellow did work 3 stations in a row
>on the same freq w/o calling qrz, then that is a testiment to operating
>skill/station quality/propagation (whatever) and is an integral part of the
>'test, and is supposed to be that way and should be acknowledged with
>a tip of the hat. This isn't supposed to be a 'test of how fast one can qsy
>after every q.
The Sprint *IS* a test of how fast one can QSY after a Q. The rules are
constructed to keep everyone moving. The idea is to PREVENT people from
sitting on one frequency working Q after Q.
The rules DO permit "chaining" of Qs. (Otherwise, BOTH stations would
have to QSY after a Q.) This essentially implies that the "new" guy gets
the frequency, and the "old" guy has to move. (In other words, if you
worked on the frequency before a Q, you have to move, if you just
arrived, you get to stay for exactly one Q)
Even if you don't actually say "CQ" or "QRZ", the act of completing a
prior QSO is, itself, a solicitation. Hence, you can't work more than 2
Qs on one frequency before you have to move.
The written rules might imply otherwise, but that seems to be the
consensus of the contesters on the list.
Bill Coleman, AA4LR Mail: aa4lr@radio.org
Quote: "Not in a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>From k7fr@ncw.net (Gary Nieborsky) Wed Sep 18 21:37:07 1996
From: k7fr@ncw.net (Gary Nieborsky) (Gary Nieborsky)
Subject: ARRL Dx results.
Message-ID: <199609182037.NAA23183@bing.ncw.net>
Disclaimer:
This is not intended to start a pile on the ARRL thread or anything else
along that line. I'm trying to determine if this was a fluke......and what
, if anything, I can do about it next year.
Poll time.......
How many of you out there have had the problem of not having your contest
effort results show up in QST?
Neither SSB or CW '95 DX scores made it......sent in same envelope.
Sent via e-mail (seperate postings) and US Mail......didn't insert the "Did
I make it" SASE (card) this time because I thought one or the other would
get there.....silly me.
Direct please.
BTW.....this is first time I've had this happen.
Gary K7FR
PS Congrats to WC6H (NU6S op) for keeping us propagation deprived Left
Coasters from being really embarassed.
>From thompson@mindspring.com (David L. Thompson) Wed Sep 18 20:55:53 1996
From: thompson@mindspring.com (David L. Thompson) (David L. Thompson)
Subject: CQ 160 Plaques..Can you help?
Message-ID: <199609182043.QAA28705@itchy.mindspring.com>
I need help on the following plaques.
1995 Zone 4 SSB ( 1996 and 1997 are taken).
1996 and 1997 Asia SSB. Prefer permanent sponsor.
1996 Oceania SSB (1997 and Permanent are taken).
Plaques are $40 and your call is put on the plaque.
73, Dave K4JRB
CQ WW 160 Contests Director
thompson@mindspring.com
>From James_E_Brown@smtp.ord.usace.army.mil (James E Brown) Wed Sep 18
>20:36:01 1996
From: James_E_Brown@smtp.ord.usace.army.mil (James E Brown) (James E Brown)
Subject: Definition of solicitation -Reply -Forwarded
Message-ID: <s2402a1b.004@smtp.ord.usace.army.mil>
From: James E Brown
To: SMTP("tree@lady.axian.com")
Subject: Definition of solicitation -Reply
I didn't quite get your point from reading the below. Where do you stand
on this? Nothing follows logically from the fact of stations calling another
station they just heard finishing a contact, except that they are looking
for another contact point. The station finishing a contact may not, in fact,
be looking for another contact at that time (may have decided to take a
break, catch up the log, answer the phone, go to the head, quit the 'test,
etc.) However, if he is there and answers, then both sides benefit, and
it is a testimonial to the run station's operating ability, station quality,
propagation (whatever) and should be acknowledged with a tip of the
hat. The more stations that call w/o a solication, the more
acknowledgement is due. This is more of a "sprint" concept than how
fast one can qsy after every contact.
AE4EY
>>> Larry Tyree <tree@lady.axian.com> 09/18/96 12:14pm >>>
I don't know who it was who thought they weren't solicitating a QSO
because they didn't send anything after finishing a QSO, but if I did, I will
tell them to wise up.
They obviously don't understand the sprint concept and the rhythm of the
contest.
If you call someone and establish a QSO with them, you will often get
called by people without any furthur action once the QSO is complete.
So, it follows logically that the act of finishing that QSO is solicitating
another
QSO. Otherwise, why are all these people calling?
I HOPE we don't have to put something like this in the rules. This is
silly!!!
Tree N6TR tree@contesting.com
>From ey8mm@tarl.td.silk.glas.apc.org (Nodir M. Tursoon-Zadeh) Thu Sep 19
>01:32:48 1996
From: ey8mm@tarl.td.silk.glas.apc.org (Nodir M. Tursoon-Zadeh) (Nodir M.
Tursoon-Zadeh)
Subject: Field day and SAC
Message-ID: <ADmI9GoWqO@tarl.td.silk.glas.apc.org>
Hi,
Will be thankful for information about rules of Field day (with address)
and where to sent log for SAC contest this year.
Does enybody know if W3HNK has e-mail? UK8FF need to hear from him.
73, Nodir
--
**************************************************************
Nodir M. Tursoon-Zadeh EY8MM * tel:+7(3772) 214-706
Member of EY2Q contest team * 212-844
ex. UJ8JMM, YA1MM, YA5MM, DL/EY8MM, * fax:+7(3772) 212-847
RJ0J, RJ1J, RJ2S, RJ4X, RJ5R, RJ6K, *
RJ8WCY, EU9J, EK8R *
**************************************************************
Mailing address: P.O.BOX 303, Dushanbe, 734001, Tajikistan
e-mail: <ey8mm@sovam.com>
<ey8mm@tarl.td.silk.glas.apc.org>
**************************************************************
>From km9p@contesting.com (Bill Fisher KM9P) Wed Sep 18 22:28:50 1996
From: km9p@contesting.com (Bill Fisher KM9P) (Bill Fisher KM9P)
Subject: Club Vanities.. Dont be a pig!
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.960918172503.21005B-100000@paris.akorn.net>
I'm going to publish a PIG LIST on my web site of all the guys I can find
that have a club callsign issued under Gate-1 and a good regular callsign.
That's just not appropriate behavior in my mind.
I hope you all agree.
73
Bill
>From foggie@dtx.net (foggie) Wed Sep 18 22:42:39 1996
From: foggie@dtx.net (foggie) (foggie)
Subject: Definition of solicitation -Reply -Forwarded
Message-ID: <XFMail.960918214718.foggie@dtx.net>
On 18-Sep-96 James_E_Brown@smtp.ord.usace.army.mil wrote:
> From: James E Brown
> To: SMTP("tree@lady.axian.com")
> Subject: Definition of solicitation -Reply
>
>I didn't quite get your point from reading the below. Where do you stand
>on this? Nothing follows logically from the fact of stations calling another
>station they just heard finishing a contact, except that they are looking
>for another contact point. The station finishing a contact may not, in fact,
>be looking for another contact at that time (may have decided to take a
>break, catch up the log, answer the phone, go to the head, quit the 'test,
>etc.) However, if he is there and answers, then both sides benefit, and
>it is a testimonial to the run station's operating ability, station quality,
>propagation (whatever) and should be acknowledged with a tip of the
>hat.
>The more stations that call w/o a solication, the more
>acknowledgement is due. This is more of a "sprint" concept than how
>fast one can qsy after every contact.
>
Agreed, and I am sure that tree was commenting on the sprint. One must QSy then,
so it is NOT a testimonial to the stations ability is it?
>AE4EY
>
>>>> Larry Tyree <tree@lady.axian.com> 09/18/96 12:14pm >>>
>
>I don't know who it was who thought they weren't solicitating a QSO
>because they didn't send anything after finishing a QSO, but if I did, I will
>tell them to wise up.
>
>They obviously don't understand the sprint concept and the rhythm of the
> contest.
>
>If you call someone and establish a QSO with them, you will often get
>called by people without any furthur action once the QSO is complete.
>So, it follows logically that the act of finishing that QSO is solicitating
>another
>QSO. Otherwise, why are all these people calling?
>
>I HOPE we don't have to put something like this in the rules. This is silly!!
!
>
>
>Tree N6TR tree@contesting.com
----------------------------------
E-Mail: foggie <foggie@dtx.net>
Time: 21:42:42
This message was sent by XF-Mail
----------------------------------
>From n3buo@ix.netcom.com (Dave Greig) Wed Sep 18 22:55:00 1996
From: n3buo@ix.netcom.com (Dave Greig) (Dave Greig)
Subject: Club Vanities.. Dont be a pig!
Message-ID: <199609182154.OAA00292@dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com>
I agree I noticed some "Clubs" are try for up 10 different call. I think
this is showing Ham Radio at its worst!!!!!!
Dave Greig
N3BUO
http://members.aol.com/daven3buo
----------
> From: Bill Fisher KM9P <km9p@contesting.com>
> To: cq-contest@TGV.COM
> Subject: Club Vanities.. Dont be a pig!
>
>
>
> I'm going to publish a PIG LIST on my web site of all the guys I can find
> that have a club callsign issued under Gate-1 and a good regular
callsign.
>
> That's just not appropriate behavior in my mind.
>
> I hope you all agree.
>
> 73
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>From k5na@bga.com (Richard L. King) Wed Sep 18 22:55:40 1996
From: k5na@bga.com (Richard L. King) (Richard L. King)
Subject: Club Vanities.. Dont be a pig!
Message-ID: <199609182155.QAA27397@zoom.bga.com>
>
>
>I'm going to publish a PIG LIST on my web site of all the guys I can find
>that have a club callsign issued under Gate-1 and a good regular callsign.
>
>That's just not appropriate behavior in my mind.
>
>I hope you all agree.
>
>73
>
>Bill
Sounds good. Will this be a list of those that rushed to get a club callsign
with the sole purpose of locking up a good additional callsign for their
personal use?
73, Richard
K5NA@BGA.COM
http://www.realtime.net/~k5na
|