[Top] [All Lists]

VP5WW Operation- CQWW SSB

Subject: VP5WW Operation- CQWW SSB
From: Chris_Blake-ECB008@email.mot.com (Chris_Blake-ECB008@email.mot.com)
Date: Wed Aug 23 19:14:15 1995
Announcing a contest expedition from Turks & Caicos during the  week of Oct. 
23-30, 1995.  Callsign will be:
during the CQWW SSB contest, and VP5/Call during the preceding week.

Operations will include all HF bands and modes, as well as 6m, 2m, and 
satellite.  Operators include NX4N, N4WW, K0LUZ, KY4Q, KF4WW, AB4OM, and 
QSL all VP5WW qsos via KB4QKP; all other qsls go to the operator's home address.

Chris, NX4N
email:   ECB008@email.mot.com
phone:   (305)723-4780

>From Larry Crim <wz4f@iquest.com>  Thu Aug 24 00:26:59 1995
From: Larry Crim <wz4f@iquest.com> (Larry Crim)
Subject: contest writeup; CQ
Message-ID: <Pine.BSD.3.91.950823180548.10950A-100000@vespucci.iquest.com>

I really enjoyed the pretty color pictures in the CQWW writeup, too.

I really disliked continuing the column much later in the magazine
without giving a "continued on page #" message.  I really thought that the
write-up was over and the scores would be issued in the new "CQ contest" 
publication.  Of course, as I read-on I was glad to have been wrong.  It 
must have been a proof reading mistake.

I was also disappointed not to see my score in the "most active zones" box
for zone 4.  It should have been number 5, just after WX3N/0 and before 
W9ZRX.  They got the score listed correctly on page 114, but somehow 
didn't put it the box.  Really think the idea of regional boxes (like 
these) are GREAT!  Oh well! It must have been a proof reading mistake.



I would wish Trey "Happy Birthday" but, I know this is outside the scope 
of the reflector and that I should move on to a new thread! ;)

>From Jim Hollenback" <jholly@hposl62.cup.hp.com  Thu Aug 24 00:44:57 1995
From: Jim Hollenback" <jholly@hposl62.cup.hp.com (Jim Hollenback)
Subject: FT-1000/OMNI VI
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950823175801.24937E-100000@iglou>
Message-ID: <9508231644.ZM10953@hpwsmjh1.cup.hp.com>

On Aug 23,  7:03pm, Tim Totten, KJ4VH wrote:
> Subject: Re: FT-1000/OMNI VI
> As Dave mentioned, the RIT problems--and probably this computer interface
> problem--could be solved with a firmware change.  Perhaps Ten-Tec has
> already fixed these things on later units (N4AR has a couple of the early
> serial numbers).  If not, it would seem they could do so if enough
> contesters wanted them to.

Not far as I know. I talked to them a couple months ago and it was still
not fixed. Perhaps if some more of you guys call up and complain, they
will see the light. The other thing about the RIT that bugs me is the
tunning rate ... to fast far as I'm concerned.

As far as the QSK delay, I did not notice the  problem. I'll look at the
prints tonight and see if any thing is there. I don't recall it.

What say guys, should we start bugging T-T about the RIT? I suggested
that if you turn it off it should zero, not hold the last freq.

that observation about the interface while in xmit is interesting. Since
I don't operate much CW (and not much Phone) I didn't notice it. Would not
surprize me, since the front panel is dead during xmit.

73, Jim, 'reasonably happy OMNI VI owner', WA6SDM

>From Frank Donovan <donovanf@sgate.com>  Thu Aug 24 00:58:47 1995
From: Frank Donovan <donovanf@sgate.com> (Frank Donovan)
Subject: FT-1000/OMNI VI
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950823195219.19396D-100000@jekyll.sgate.com>

Wouldn't it be great if all developers of CONTEST software provided a PTT 
output on CW so we aren't forced to fiddle with CW VOX adjustments which 
inevitably truncate the first character, and cause us the miss the 
beginning of reply transmissions due the VOX hang time...

On Wed, 23 Aug 1995, Tim Totten, KJ4VH wrote:
> There is one hardware complaint I had with the Omni-V, and I honestly
> can't remember if they did the same stupid thing with the Omni-VI or
> not--someone pse tell me!  I remember my first time using the Omni-V in a
> contest.  I started the contest running guys, using semi break-in. 
> Unfortunately, the delay was set a little too long--fine for normal
> ragchewing, but too slow for contesting.  I was missing the first letter
> of each stn calling me.  I kept looking for the knob to adjust the delay,
> but figuring it was on the back, I hollered to Bill to reach around back
> and tweak it while I continued to operate.  I could tell by the look on
> his face that it wasn't that easy.  Sure enough, we ended up pulling the
> radio off the desk, turning it over, and taking off the bottom cover to
> adjust the break-in delay pot!  I still can't believe they designed it 
> like that!  So, can someone cfm whether they did the same thing with the 
> Omni-VI?

>From Takao KUMAGAI <je1cka@dumpty.nal.go.jp>  Thu Aug 24 01:55:13 1995
From: Takao KUMAGAI <je1cka@dumpty.nal.go.jp> (Takao KUMAGAI)
Subject: RUFZ score(08/24/95)
Message-ID: <199508240055.JAA11992@dumpty.nal.go.jp>

N8RR & W2UP has been deadheating.

This score will be merged by the Author DL4MM for the 
International listing.

=== RUFZ Score Listing === (last revised 8/24/95)

   45991    N8RR 284 446  7.818200
   45075    W2UP   2 446  7.791800
   39037   DF4PA   8 390  7.655900
   36807  KC5NWX   7 367  7.779200      (=KR0Y)
   35150   RA9AA   6 416  6.988400
   34299  DL8WAA     397
   32070    K1AR  20 367  5.647600
   31710  DL3DZZ  19 367  7.180100
   31688    K1DG  24 367  5.530400
   31101  JE1JKL  20 347
   29778    K3WW  24 347  5.567600
   28859  JH0KHR   1 347  6.360500
   27596   KE2PF  44 328  5.580000
   26115  SM0TXT     328  6.304300
   24895    K5ZD  24 328
   24785  SM3OJR  13 328  6.021400
   24267  JH0NZN  27 312  5.771800
   23915    N3RS  23 312  4.683600
   21948    KR2Q  32 284  4.236900
   21908   T94EU   5 297  4.751600
   21281   KJ4VH  23 284  4.658000
   21133  JA0FVU  22 284  5.068200
   21116    ND3F   ? 297
   20744  JE1SPY  15 312
   20571    AD1C   4 297  3.900300
   19076    K1IU  15 271  3.818100
   13378  RA9AEW  10 240  3.693900
   12562   UA9AR   2 250  3.334200
   10426  RA9ATU  27 201  3.029600
    8092  RA9ATW   1 250  2.983400
    6568  RA9ANR   6 201  2.379800

How to get RUFZ program

        #get rufzpack.uue
in the body of the message.

        Tack Kumagai JE1CKA/KH0AM
        TEL:81-30-066-6408, FAX:81-423-93-4449
        Internet: je1cka@nal.go.jp

>From Larry Crim <wz4f@iquest.com>  Thu Aug 24 02:33:16 1995
From: Larry Crim <wz4f@iquest.com> (Larry Crim)
Message-ID: <Pine.BSD.3.91.950823202739.20418A-100000@vespucci.iquest.com>

I've been made aware of 3 more errors in the CQWW writeup..all in the 
"ACTIVE ZONES" box for zone 4.

Ommitted were the following...(in addition to me):

#8 should be K4LTA from Tennessee.
#9 should be W4WTO from Colorado.
#10 should be N4XM from Kentucky.

Its seems as though CQ thought all four-land calls reside in zone 5.

Anyone notice any other errors?


>From robert <w5robert@blkbox.COM>  Thu Aug 24 02:39:20 1995
From: robert <w5robert@blkbox.COM> (robert)
Subject: contest writeup; no play rule
Message-ID: <9508232039.aa06085@blkbox.COM>

> On Tue, 22 Aug 1995, Rob Shapiro wrote:
>   Also, I agree with others that have 
> suggested K1AR > shud disqualify himself in future CQ contests ;-)
If given the pick of playing in the contest or being a judge, most
might decide to play: hence no one would be around to judge the
logs.  A solution different than no play needs to be found for this one.
73 Robert  WB5CRG 

>From km9p@is.net (Bill Fisher)  Thu Aug 24 02:52:07 1995
From: km9p@is.net (Bill Fisher) (Bill Fisher)
Subject: High 20m antennas (N5RZ)
Message-ID: <199508240152.VAA16728@mail1.is.net>

>Anyway, we had tried a high 204BA at 190' & all different heights with other
>20M yagis over the years, but until 1988 nothing beat the Telrex at 100'
> What happened in 1988?  We moved the repaired Telrex to the top of a 190'
>foot tower.  Wow! Awesome!  Gordon's "Siberian Express" gave new meaning to
>20M in Texas.  Trey (KKN) did some single op CW tests and mentioned it was
>THE antenna to use whenever possible.  Short or long haul, it was always
>better!!  Must be all the lobes.

My only experience with a high 20m antenna was at K4VX.  Lew put up a 4
element quad at 180' for 20m.  What a dog.  Unless you like working THE LONG

I think W3LPL came to the same conclusion (from MD).  A high 20m antenna
just doesn't pay off too often.  Or is it that you just can't get it high
enough?  Frank?  The N5AU antenna is the first high 20 that I have heard
worked well most of the time.  Maybe the southern latitudes change something?

Now 15m is another story.  Lew put up a 6 element at 180' for 15m and it was
the sole reason we won M/S one year at the bottom of the cycle.  Or was that
KR0Y that was the reason?  Whatever, we worked a lot of guys on 15m that
most of the east coast did not work.  We also could not hear most of the
stations on the rhombic.


Bill, KM9P

>From Frank Donovan <donovanf@sgate.com>  Thu Aug 24 03:42:19 1995
From: Frank Donovan <donovanf@sgate.com> (Frank Donovan)
Subject: High 20m antennas (N5RZ)
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950823223516.24690A-100000@jekyll.sgate.com>

Hi Bill!

Our 5 element 20M beam (48 foot boom) at 200 feet is working VERY well 
now that we are at the bottom of the sunspot cycle.  Tyler, KF3P, has 
used it a whole lot more than me, but my experience is that on the longer 
paths (such as JA), it is FAR better (one S unit or so) than any of my 
other identical 20M beams at other (much lower) heights.  I credit much 
of the LPL team's competitive advantage on 20M to this fantastic antenna!

I'll let Tyler, KF3P, provide more detailed comments...


On Wed, 23 Aug 1995, Bill Fisher wrote:

> My only experience with a high 20m antenna was at K4VX.  Lew put up a 4
> element quad at 180' for 20m.  What a dog.  Unless you like working THE LONG
> HAUL.  
> I think W3LPL came to the same conclusion (from MD).  A high 20m antenna
> just doesn't pay off too often.  Or is it that you just can't get it high
> enough?  Frank?  The N5AU antenna is the first high 20 that I have heard
> worked well most of the time.  Maybe the southern latitudes change something?

>From Jan Seay <jans@muskox.alaska.edu>  Thu Aug 24 03:47:10 1995
From: Jan Seay <jans@muskox.alaska.edu> (Jan Seay)
Subject: FT-1000/OMNI VI
Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.91.950823184300.2893A-100000@muskox.alaska.edu>

Yes - the delay for the external amp is now software set
on the Omni 6, and is defeated by going to "FAST QSK". Assuming
your not using open frame old slow relays (can't believe you would
in todays world), then it is just right for fast contesting.
As to the RIT problem, no reason to use RIT as the split
vfo works so great, and eliminates those problems. I have
noticed that you can no longer hit A=B while transmitting to
bring everything back to one frequency like you could with the
"5". All in all a darned good rig.
-Del, KL7HF-

>From Kenneth G. Kopp" <0006485696@mcimail.com  Thu Aug 24 03:55:00 1995
From: Kenneth G. Kopp" <0006485696@mcimail.com (Kenneth G. Kopp)
Subject: Contest software/VOX
Message-ID: <12950824025521/0006485696PK4EM@MCIMAIL.COM>

Amen to W3LPL's wish for contest software that would provide
a way to get around the -terrible- problem of missed dits (and
sometimes even dahs!) because rigs are slow to pick up in the
TX mode.  W's become M's, A's become T's, N's become I's, etc.
(Wonder if it would work to put a couple of spaces before each
canned message ... i.e. __599 MT TU?

Next time you have your rig running with software CW, take a
listen to it (NOT via the sidetone) ...  you might be surprised
at what you're really sending .... 

73! de Ken Kopp/K0PP

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • VP5WW Operation- CQWW SSB, Chris_Blake-ECB008@email.mot.com <=