N6AA> The DARC is actually using one of the Beetle
N6AA> Valley QSO Party standards in its definition of single-operator
N6AA> for the WAE Contest! Yes, the rules state that "single-operator"
N6AA> entrants are allowed to use packet cluster spotting.
N6> 73,
N6>
N6> Dick N6AA, N6AA@DELPHI.COM
Enlighten us Dick - Isn't Beetle Valley the QTH of Dean, N6BV???
73 de Bill, N6CQ/3 (n6cq@paonline.com)
>From eric%modular.UUCP@cs.arizona.edu (Eric Gustafson) Fri Aug 12 21:42:29
>1994
From: eric%modular.UUCP@cs.arizona.edu (Eric Gustafson) (Eric Gustafson)
Subject: nv6o naqp cw
Message-ID: <9408122042.AA09076@modular>
Ok, Eric I'm out of the woodwork. Can you describe the geometry of this
nonfunctional delta loop and it's proximity to other conductive structures?
Where was the feedpoint?
I can testify that Delta Loops can indeed be made to work well. But
frequently it doesn't happen by accident. If working correctly and fed in
the right location, they are almost entirely vertically polarized and have
a relatively low takeoff angle. This may not be ideal for 80M operation on
NAQP. But take heart, there is also a feedpoint on the same loop which will
produce high angle horizontally polarized RF fields at relatively high
efficiency. BTW, the right (DX) feedpoint for a full size equilateral
delta loop which is supported vertically (not laying over to one side due
to short tower syndrome) is NOT at the corner. It is about 25% of the way
up one of the sides. Decoupling the feedline from the antenna at the
feedpoint is critical to correct functionality.
I have seen one delta loop installation that happened to have about a 20 dB
front to back ratio due to unfortunate placement of a nearly resonant tower
structure boradside to the loop nearby. This tower was tuned to near
resonance by a 1/4 wave sloper for the band in question. It thus became a
good reflector to the driven loop. Of course, the main lobe was in the
direction opposite of the desired coverage.
73, Eric N7CL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Gustafson N7CL | The mountains are high and the Emperor
6730 S. Old Spanish Trail | is far away.
Tucson, AZ 85747 |
INTERNET: modular!eric@cs.arizona.edu | You can't work 'em
CI$: 71750,2133 | if you can't hear 'em.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From eric%modular.UUCP@cs.arizona.edu (Eric Gustafson) Fri Aug 12 21:55:26
>1994
From: eric%modular.UUCP@cs.arizona.edu (Eric Gustafson) (Eric Gustafson)
Subject: WAE scoring
Message-ID: <9408122055.AA09192@modular>
>
>By the way, the CQ 160 contest DX point scoring is also excessively
>generous, as far as I am concerned. The 5-to-1 ratio of DX points
>to W points (from the US perspective) makes it mighty hard to
>overcome the EU runs that the east coast guys get.
>
> -- Pat
> WA8YVR
> 00pmbarkey@bsuvc.bsu.edu
>
Tell me about it!
Here is how I woud like to see the CQWW 160 scored:
Each QSO gets 5 * E points regardless of where the station is.
E is a calculated multiplier for each QSO it is calculated by the dividing
the great circle distance of the QSO by half the circumference of the
earth. That might generate a bit more interest from South America and the
Pacific than we see currently. It would also force the exchange of
meaningful information for the QSO.
73, Eric N7CL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Gustafson N7CL | The mountains are high and the Emperor
6730 S. Old Spanish Trail | is far away.
Tucson, AZ 85747 |
INTERNET: modular!eric@cs.arizona.edu | You can't work 'em
CI$: 71750,2133 | if you can't hear 'em.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From fish@crl.com (Bill Fisher, KM9P Concentric Systems, Inc.) Fri Aug 12
>22:13:25 1994
From: fish@crl.com (Bill Fisher, KM9P Concentric Systems, Inc.) (Bill Fisher,
KM9P Concentric Systems, Inc.)
Subject: N6AA vs. K5ZD vs. KR2Q
Message-ID: <199408122113.AA29901@mail.crl.com>
>The multi score depends
>not only on what happens within the 1000 foot circle, but upon the
>multitudes who "feed" spots to the multi. Clearly, we are "measuring"
something
>different than 10 years ago.
>Steve London, N2IC/0
>n2ic@longs.att.com
This point should be forwarded to the guys doing the WRTC 1995. Why would
you allow the use of packet when you are trying to test operator ability?
To me, you should not allow packet and REALLY test operator ability. It
doesn't take much ability to mash CNTRL-RIGHT ARROW to grab a spot in CT.
It does take ability to S&P quickly and efficiently.
Ken Wolf told me once that he was listening to K1AR operate the WW contest.
He said John would scan over guys (many) before a callsign was even given.
Seems John has a pretty good ear for voices or maybe remembering the band.
To me this the type of thing we should be testing, not the ability to jump
around chasing packet spots!
73
---
Bill Fisher, KM9P
Concentric Systems, Inc. (CSI)
404-442-5821 Fax 404-667-1975
>From fish@crl.com (Bill Fisher, KM9P Concentric Systems, Inc.) Fri Aug 12
>22:19:21 1994
From: fish@crl.com (Bill Fisher, KM9P Concentric Systems, Inc.) (Bill Fisher,
KM9P Concentric Systems, Inc.)
Subject: WRTC 95 comments
Message-ID: <199408122119.AA00668@mail.crl.com>
Sorry if this duplicates, I sent it once and never saw it come back to me!
Well I've gone over the WRTC #1 announcement and I don't relish the job of
assigning points to operators for 1990-1994 efforts.
First of all there is ABSOLUTELY no fair way to assign points to operators
of a multi operation of any kind. How do you compare a guy that helped
operate at M/M with a guy that did single-op all band in CQWW? You can't!
But, since you must...
My suggestion...
Single-op is the most difficult and most competitive of all categories. It
should be weighted as such. Single-op Assisted should be somewhat less
since the competition isn't as great. Op's at M/S, M2, M/M or single bands
should be considerably down from both. So....
If K1AR wins the CQWW SSB contest he gets say 100 points.
N6BV gets 10th and has half the score of K1AR. He is then assigned 50 points.
Ops at a multi operation can receive 75% of the best S/O score. So, lets
say K1DG is operating at KC1XX and they win M/S. The ops at KC1XX would
split the 75 points that they get for winning. The more ops, the less
points. There is no way to objectively assign points any other way. Even
if K1DG operated 95% of the time while the others slept, he still gets the
same as everyone else. Other multi-singles would get points based on a
percentage of the KC1XX score depending on how far down they were.
Single band winners should be able to receive 20% of the top single-op
score. This is probably being overly generous. It doens't take alot of
savvy to call CQ all weekend on one band.
The guys getting jammed in this deal? N3RS and N3RD! These guys are the
best multi-single team in the country. But, comparing them with K1AR or
KR0Y is very difficult if not impossible when they don't enter the same
category and nobody knows who's doing the operating. What makes it even
more difficult is that they never operate as single-ops.
Conclusion: The guys that make the teams should be guys that can be
evaluated fairly against each other. If you only operate in a multi
enviroment you shouldn't be able to accumulate enough points to make the
team. Kind of ironic since we are assigning operators to a multi-single team!
Do us all a favor... Before you get hot and bothered and want to post a
reply to this message... Think about it! Think if YOU were the guy that
had to assign the points to all of the guys submitting applications... What
would you do? What would be the best way to get the best op's from each zone?
73
---
Bill Fisher, KM9P
Concentric Systems, Inc. (CSI)
404-442-5821 Fax 404-667-1975
|