K3EST's recent note reminded me that I forgot to mention some other
decisions from the Administration meeting on Sep 12th:
WRTC-95 application deadline will be extended thru 1995 Feb 28th. We don't
believe we can extend further and still allow time for application
evaluations, notification, and people to make travel/visa arrangements. We
expect that most applications will arrive at the last minute.... normal human
procrastination!
To respond to a couple of Bob's other points:
Congrats to W6AXX, too. That will be a big surprise for him!
We have received directly about 10 sets of comments from Europeans and also
JAs (and would like to hear even more).
Please also see the note sent earlier vis a vis WA8YVR's remarks on
operator rating.
More info soon...... keep the feedback coming! Thanks again.
-- Eric K3NA
for WRTC-95
>From tree@cmicro.com (Larry Tyree) Thu Sep 15 00:52:44 1994
From: tree@cmicro.com (Larry Tyree) (Larry Tyree)
Subject: Sprint rule change suggestions
Message-ID: <9409142352.AA14913@cmicro.com>
There have been a lot of suggestions floating around on how to fix the
sprint. Here are some of my thoughts from the perspective of a log
checker:
>
> I simply cannot believe that you can find some CO2, FG5, etc down on the end
> of 40 meters who gives you exactly per the rules a correct Sprint exchange.
It is true that occasionally a QSO like this shows up. I have even done
this type of thing myself, although I tend to do it at the start of the
contest so I can get the guy up to speed to send nr1 at the start of
the contest. However, I don't do this anymore because it mostly isn't
worth the trouble. It appears K5GN worked a YS on 40 in the recent sprint,
but his QSO total seems to have suffered.
> he doesn't get K****** CO2** NR 1 JOSE CUBA" sent to him. He says "well,
> it is implied". Give me a frigging break!!!!
Well, the rules clearly state the information has to be exchanged, and having
it done my implication is not only breaking the rules, but the intent of
them as well.
>
> And while I'm at it, I have heard of certain SPRINT TEAMS meeting and working
> each other back and forth in order to boost the Q totals!! This simply makes
> me SICK. What ever happened to competing honestly in order that the best one
> wins. Our whole world is acting like this, so I guess it is an acceptable
> evolution of radio contesting to follow along.?????!!!!
>
I think you are getting sick for no reason here. There is no evidence
in any of the logs of this kind of activity. Back about 10-12 years ago,
the Neiger's Tigers were encouraged to start on 40 to work each other
before the skip got long. I though this was great because I could start
on 20 with 9 less guys trying to beat me out. As I remember, I always had
the top team score, so I don't think the strategy made any real difference.
Maybe you were thinking about the "sprint" that happens with the SCCC
teams at the start of the CQ WW CW contest? This is a different story
where you try to work all of the other single op DXpeditions at the
start and get them out of the way. I have taken part in two of these
and this is obviously a different animal.
I think K5GA's observation that the sprint is not being won by honest people
is way off base. Obviously if we are talking about the winner, we must
be talking about KR0Y. Jeff has a clean bill of health as far as I can
tell. He does not appear to be making skeds and has complied with the
recent rule changes concerning multiple transmissions. He is simply one
of the best in one of the best places for the sprint, and he has an
incredible string of victories going on.
There is also talk about changing the multipliers to an adder, or elminating
them totally. This subject has been around for a long time. I personally
tried to get this changed about 10 years ago and failed. I doubt a
real concensus can be acheived to change the rules now either. The
Sprint is what it is, and the flavor should be maintained. If you really
want to do without mults, look at the top ten QSO box, or get on in the
internet sprints!!
Tree N6TR
tree@cmicro.com
> Bill K5GA
>
>
>
>From Randy A Thompson <K5ZD@world.std.com> Wed Sep 14 20:35:17 1994
From: Randy A Thompson <K5ZD@world.std.com> (Randy A Thompson)
Subject: multi-single...new approach
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9409142010.A3533-0100000@world.std.com>
As a participant in many, many multi-single efforts, I have always had
problems with how different people interpret the current m/s band change
rule.
I would support your new m/s rule proposal. It will require even more of
a multi-multi station to be successful, but it will make for a very FUN
category. As part of the new rule, I would like to see the rule
specifically state that the 10 min period begins when the first QSO is
made on a band (don't let people make their own interpretation of this).
I would also like to suggest that the rule clarify the following:
- One, and only one, transmitted signal is possible at any time (hey, it
is supposed to be multi-single!)
-or-
- No more than two transmitted signals are permitted at any time. One is
the RUN station and the second is the MULT station.
Without these rules, you have M/M for multipliers and warming up new
frequencies.
Randy
K5ZD@world.std.com
>From Robert Wood <w5robert@blkbox.COM> Thu Sep 15 01:39:09 1994
From: Robert Wood <w5robert@blkbox.COM> (Robert Wood)
Subject: Sprint Mults
Message-ID: <9409141939.aa07556@blkbox.COM>
>
> Bill K5GA wrote:
> > he doesn't get K****** CO2** NR 1 JOSE CUBA" sent to him. He says "well,
> > it is implied". Give me a frigging break!!!!
> >
> I agree, the "exchange" of implied data doesn't cut it. I assume that it is ok
> to query the CO2 to get the info you need, though. If it isn't then I guess
> Frank, KE4GY
> fhmoore@ingr.com
>
I don't understand why in a CW test you would query the serial # of
the CO2?? Certainly
the CO2** is polite enough to send 73 at the end of the exchange. What
more do you need?
--
73
Robert Wood
WB5CRG
w5robert@blkbox.com (blkbox is NOT blackbox, inc.!)
w5robert@blkbox.com@menudo.uh.edu
>From Ed Gilbert <eyg@hpnjlc.njd.hp.com> Thu Sep 15 01:38:27 1994
From: Ed Gilbert <eyg@hpnjlc.njd.hp.com> (Ed Gilbert)
Subject: WM4T sprint score
Message-ID: <9409150040.AA01511@hp.com>
> I think an issue that needs to be addressed more than the
>multipler issue is to come up with a change to increase activity in the
>sprints. (especially CW) Why not have a low power class ?? If you did
>this all those stations that give up after the 1st hour in frustation
>because they can't work anyone would maybe stay on the whole 4 hours
>giving everyone more QSO's. You could have a top ten box for the low
>power stations so they could have a chance to have a feeling of
>accomplishment for their effort. I think that's why the NA QSO party
>is so popular with some people because they have a chance to maybe
>win. A lot of the stations that you work in the NA QSO party never
>even show up for the sprint and both are sponered by NCJ !!
I agree completely. I have never given the sprint a serious effort
because there is not a low power category. Judging from the recent
postings here on rfi, 3V/M fields, and remote stations, a lot of us
cannot run high power without creating problems with the neighbors.
There isn't much incentive to run low power in the sprint when your
score will be mixed in with all the high power scores. It's a shame
that the outstanding low power scores of K7GM and a few others posted
here will not be get the recognition they deserve when the results
are printed.
-- Ed Gilbert, WA2SRQ
>From Rick, K7GM" <AONISWAN@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU Thu Sep 15 02:30:59 1994
From: Rick, K7GM" <AONISWAN@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU (Rick, K7GM)
Subject: Phone Sprint
Phone Sprint is almost upon us.
If you have a sprint team, get me the info via either US mail
(P.O. Box 3778, Greenville, NC 27836), via the telephone (home is
919-753-7760, you can leave a message on the recorder), via e-mail
(aoniswan@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu). Telepathy sometimes works, but is not
reliable.
At the end of the contest, send your logs via the mail or
internet. If using mail, please, please, please put your log on
diskette (the .prn and .sum files from NA are great, but can use
most anything).
I'm putting a "Baseball Team" together (our motto: At least
WE'RE playing) with appropriate baseball-oriented names, and need
a few more players. Volunteers? or do I need to resort to the draft?
Rick, K7GM
>From Hodge Thorgerson David Cameron-INBA <hodge@redvax1.dgsca.unam.mx> Thu
>Sep 15 03:48:34 1994
From: Hodge Thorgerson David Cameron-INBA <hodge@redvax1.dgsca.unam.mx> (Hodge
Thorgerson David Cameron-INBA)
Subject: TV DX via XE1/AA6RX
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.90.940914204540.20500H-100000@redvax1>
For those of you out there interested in what I actually do for a living
these days...
This Saturday (17th) at 2pm mexican standard time on FOX television is a
program called OPERALIA. My orchestra is playing for this opera
competition which will be aired live and runs for 2 hours.
I will be the tallest seated male in the orchestra, in the back with the
horns. Since I'm the only gringo horn player, "call sign recognition"
should be easy. And I promise to get home as fast as possible to hand out
a few Sprint Qs on SSB. I will be WEAK!!! 73, David XE1/AA6RX
>From k2mm@MasPar.COM (John Zapisek) Thu Sep 15 05:48:41 1994
From: k2mm@MasPar.COM (John Zapisek) (John Zapisek)
Subject: multi-single...new approach
Message-ID: <9409150448.AA08122@greylock.local>
To Doug/KR2Q: Hi. I appreciated the elaboration of the CQWW M/S rules you
posted here on CQ-CONTEST.
Your point about multi-single being a misnomer is well taken. It's a fun
category whatever you want to call it.
> So if you work the guy at 2310, you can work the next guy (another band)
> at 2320. . . . I feel fine about giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Quite right.
However, something else you said gives me trouble:
> As for WHEN the 10 minute period starts, it HAS to be based on when the
> first qso gets logged. Listening time is not known and has no way to be
> verified.
You allow credit for Qs with uniques. You allow credit for Qs with stations
who don't send in logs. Why is this the one thing that must be verified?
The submitting station's log provides evidence of listening time by the gap
between the last Q on the previous band and the first Q on the new band.
No, it's not watertight proof, but why should this aspect be subject to such
a higher standard?
I've found it quite common to QSY to 160m at, say, 0055Z; make two Qs, one
at 0100 and another at 0101; then QSY back to 80m at 0105 and make an 80m Q
at 0106. If I understand you right, the 80m Q would be busted.
CT's 10-minute checker does a good job of plausibility checking QSY times.
It will give the above scenario a passing grade. It would be unhappy,
however, if it saw an 80m Q at 0057. It would then say the 80m Q at 0106
was too soon.
Any chance you'd reconsider your interpretation? Especially in light of
what you said about benefit of the doubt?
In any event, thanks for taking time to think about this. 73. --John/K2MM
|