1994 California QSO Party
Class: Single Op, All Bands
State: Georgia
Power: 1000
Callsign used = N9HZQ (operated at W4AQL)
Band CW SSB Pts
80 21 4 71
40 50 26 202
20 71 294 801
15 59 173 523
10 0 0 0
All 201 497 1597
Multipliers: 58
Score: 1597 * 58 ==> 92,626
Equipment: 2 * Kenwood TS940S
Antennas: TH6DXX, Hygain 155 15-meter, KLM 40-meter, 160m dipole for 80(!)
Operators: N9HZQ
Remarks: My first single-op and first CQP. What a blast! Sure wish I had
an 80m antenna. I burned up the 160 and the 40m didn't work so great on 80.
--
-----------------------------
Jeff Tucker N9HZQ
tucker@eedsp.gatech.edu
W4AQL Contest Team
>From k2mm@MasPar.COM (John Zapisek) Wed Oct 5 01:01:22 1994
From: k2mm@MasPar.COM (John Zapisek) (John Zapisek)
Subject: VHF Manufactured Contacts
Message-ID: <9410050001.AA11729@greylock.local>
As a charter MGEF'er, I've read with great interest all the ballyhoo over
Dick/K3MQH's hamfest-QSO windfall on 2m FM. I thought Ron/WZ1V's original
posting went a little overboard, and I was glad to see him amend his
position in a subsequent posting.
> [Ron/WZ1V] So I guess it's all fine and well to use advertising to
> fabricate QSOs!
In this context, I think it's OK. And not just letter-of-the-rules OK, but
even generally-accepted spirit-of-the-rules OK. VHF-contest ethics are a
little different from HF-contest ethics; they always have been.
Consider that most if not all of the top unlimited-multi's send out their
own rovers to increase their grid-square totals on the sparsely-inhabited
microwave bands. These are often "captive" rovers who work only their own
guys back on the hill and nobody else. By any measure, these are clearly
manufactured Qs. They are, however, generally considered quite legitimate.
In the pre-grid-square, pre-rover years, we'd sometimes send out captive
rovers to several nearby sections. To comply with the "one-transmitter
one-callsign" rule, we'd have one car with, say, three operators, and, for
each band, one receiver, one antenna, and three transmitters -- one per
operator/callsign. This was good for three new sections on each band.
(Sure was nice being in New England with all those close-in sections!)
> HEY EVERYONE - PLUG YOUR HT INTO OUR BEAM AND WORK K3U-NO-WHO ON 146.5!
Sounds very similar. One TX, one call. Is it that manufactured Qs are OK
only if they're new mults? Or maybe the problem is the advertising?
> Did Dick ask for volunteers to help spread the word at the hamfest to
> support their contest effort? Sure he did, why not? No rule against it.
Exactly so. We've seen VHF'ers advertise here on CQ-CONTEST looking for
contest skeds. Nothing wrong with that. You might even consider QSOs made
that way to also be manufactured, though to a lesser degree. (The packet
purists among the HF ops might insist, however, that this puts you in the
"assisted" category :-)
The test for allowable during-contest solicitation has generally been that
it must not use non-ham-radio means, e.g., telephone. A poster under a
tower at a hamfest strikes me as being quite ham-radio-ish.
> Is this in the true spirit of ham radio? Is it even legal?
Legal? Sure. In the spirit? Now THAT's a good question. I know I'd have
felt a lot better about our long string of consecutive victories if our
rovers had worked at least a few other stations not affiliated with us.
> If there are those who feel there are unfair advantages in VHF contesting
> due to "legal loopholes" in the present rule structure, please give the
> ARRL CAC a chance to refine the wording of those rules.
It's a tough problem.
Ban FM? Personally, as a weak-signal dilettante, I could go for that. At
least 2m FM, anyway.
Ban rovers? Naw, non-captive roving is too much fun.
Ban QSOs with "affiliated" rovers? Maybe. This tightens the loophole but
doesn't close it. You'd have to trust the mountain-toppers to not abuse the
ambiguity in the definition of "affiliated". That might not be a problem.
It would certainly reduce the enormous amount of effort required to do a
competitive unlimited-multi operation. It would no longer be necessary to
outfit and coordinate a fleet of captive rovers.
Or how about a requirement that a rover make QSOs with stations in at least
three different grids from each grid they rove to? This means a captive
rover could work his guys on the hill plus someone in the same car but would
still have to make at least one random QSO with somebody who submits a log.
If not, QSOs with that rover in that grid wouldn't count for anybody. This
might even help solve the "rover circling" problem.
Since moving to California, I've been able to make only occasional trips to
Mt. Greylock to operate with the W2SZ/1 gang. As such, I'd suggest that
more weight be given to the opinions of those who regularly operate the
contest. I'm sure there are considerations that have escaped me. Still,
it's my hope that these observations help put some of the issues into better
perspective. 73. --John/K2MM/WA1MUG
P.S. For our HF-only friends, it might be worth explaining why VHF-contest
ethics are a little different. Basically, VHF contests have the additional
goal of encouraging equipment construction for the higher bands to help
promote their non-contest use. This has roots in a time when even 2m was
mostly vacant and use-it-or-lose-it was a real fear. This consideration
still exists, but it applies nowadays mostly to 902 MHz and up.
Also, VHF tests tend to be competitions more among stations than operators.
To apply the concept of equilization, you would have to evaluate all the
operators' skills and apply a corresponding factor to each station's score.
In this way the best station would be truly known, irrespective of any
ringers or hired guns :-)
>From Robert A. Wilson" <n6tv@VNET.IBM.COM Wed Oct 5 01:17:55 1994
From: Robert A. Wilson" <n6tv@VNET.IBM.COM (Robert A. Wilson)
Subject: 1994 CQP High Claimed Scores to date
1994 California QSO Party (CQP) High Claimed Scores
Send updates/corrections to N6TV@VNET.IBM.COM. If you have at least one
line in the message that matches the following format, it will help
me a lot.
More to come. Help me fill in some of the blanks.
Inside California:
CW Phone Total
Call QSOs QSOs QSOs Mul Points Comments
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
N6RO 866 2060 2926 58 389,644 CCOS, M/M, +K3EST
W6EEN 2100 58 287,970 RIV, M/S, +KA6SAR, K6XC
AB6FO 825 829 1654 58 239,714 LAX
N6EK 670 769 1439 58 205,784 ALA
KC6X 1497 57 203,262 LAX
AA6KX 659 762 1411 57 199,557 ALP/MON, missed HI
K6KM 1290 Butte, M/S +WM2C
AB6WM 477 736 1213 58 168,374 SCRZ, 19 hours
KM6YX 1371 58 159,152 LAX
AA6MV 282 718 1000 58 132,356
N6TV 196 804 1000 56 122,976 SCLA, 11 hrs; then to Yolo
KN6EL 486 257 743 58 114,376 Butte, low power
KJ6HO 876 56 97,328 LAX, low power
WA6SDM 306 323 629 58 90,712 SCLA
N6BT 103 439 542 57 67,659 YOLO expedition, N6TV opr.
WA7BNM 413 52 44,616 LAX, low power, 8.75 hrs
AE0M 143 130 273 49 33,781 SCLA
K6LL 88 143 231 48 26,400 IMP, 2.5 hrs, also on from AZ!
K2MM 131 30 10,530 SCLA
NG0X/6 0 10 10 9 180 Mobile
Outside California:
Call CW Phone Total Mul Points Comments
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
N6CQ/3 229 518 747 56 96,488 PA, 21 hrs, missed SBEN,STAN
KE9I 217 507 724 58 96,338 IN
N9HZQ 201 497 698 58 92,626 GA, at W4AQL
K0PP/& 236 343 579 55 76,670 MT
K6XO/7 206 362 568 57 76,494 UT, missed Colusa
WA6KUI 533 56 75,600 TN, 22+ hrs, missed TRIN,SBEN
KF0IA 58 574 632 55 72,710 CO, 18.8 hours
W5ASP 227 134 361 55 51,810
K7GM/4 197 145 342 52 45,812 NC, low power, 7 hours
KM0L 214 97 311 51 42,636
K0GU 98 245 343 54 42,336 CO
VE4GV 92 237 329 39,750 MB, low power, 7.5 hours
K2UVG 91 242 333 52 39,364 FL, low power
AA4NC 300 54 NC, low power
N4OGW/9 235 51 35,955
K6LL/7 110 156 266 51 32,742 AZ, also entering from CA!
KO9Y 113 116 229 44 25,124
WQ5L 113 103 216 46 25,070 AL, 8.5 hours
WD0T 83 93 176 45 19,575 SD, 4.5 hours
AA7FL 48 139 187 46 19,412 OR
KC0EI 145 77 45 26,505
N1PBT 1 192 193 50 19,350 VT, low power, 16.75 hrs
XE1/AA6RX 88 62 150 50 19,400 Mexico
K0EJ 30 131 161 49 18,718 TN, low power
K1TN 99 45 144 43 16,641 CT
N4ZR 152 39 15,708
WB5CRG 1 136 137 46 12,650 TX
KD0AV 62 11 73 24 4,992 IL, low power
N6TR 79 26 105 41 4,305 OR
KB1GW 105 38 low power, 4.75 hours
>From Randy A Thompson <K5ZD@world.std.com> Tue Oct 4 20:37:10 1994
From: Randy A Thompson <K5ZD@world.std.com> (Randy A Thompson)
Subject: Club Scores and Single Band
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9410042008.B5758-0100000@world.std.com>
Gene,
You make it sound like this is "common knowledge." Well it may be for
members of large East Coast contest clubs and CQ Contest Committee, but I
don't recall ever seeing information on this in CQ Magazine. Ever!
Why not put a note in the Misc section of the CQ WW rules that states
these extra contacts can be submitted for Club score. I bet there are a
lot of people who would be surprised!
I remember the first time I learned of this rule. I had already been in
contesting for more than 6 years.
The CQ Contests are the worst for having unwritten, undocumented rules
and interpretations of rules. I for one wish they would decide on them
and make them public.
Randy
k5zd@world.std.com
On Mon, 3 Oct 1994, Eugene Walsh wrote:
> Gents: On the inquiry of AA7FL regarding single
> band entries, The CQWW has always (Doin' this
> 40 years now) allowed extra band contacts to
> be used for club scores. Anyone really should
> know this if they have been around a while, and
> any one of them would answer if asked.
>
> Its hard to believe that an answer could not be
> gotten from anyone associated with CQWW. Whom
> have you asked???
>
> 73 Gene N2AA
>
|