OOPS, my netscape sent the last message b4 I finished. Anyway KB2UGM
will again be activating NNY for the PHONE SS.
>From AD8I@ibm.net (Joe Subich) Mon Nov 4 21:42:31 1996
From: AD8I@ibm.net (Joe Subich) (Joe Subich)
Subject: CQ Kansas City Contesters/DXers
Message-ID: <199611050252.CAA69840@smtp-gw01.ny.us.ibm.net>
I will be making a quick (in and out in the same day) business trip to the
Kansas City area late this week. Are there any contesters and/or DXers
willing to answer some questions about the area, either on the phone while
I'm there (if my schedule permits) or by e-mail?
--
73,
... Joe Subich, AD8I
<AD8I@ibm.net>
>From 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) Mon Nov 4 19:16:08 1996
From: 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) (Hans Brakob)
Subject: Where was WYO es MB?
Message-ID: <961104191607_71111.260_EHM63-1@CompuServe.COM>
Lee, K0WA asked:
>Where in the heck was WYO and MB?<
VE4GV and VE4VV were all over the place. Never heard WY or SD, but I spent no
time looking for mults.
>...where was 40 meters this year? <
It was a 2-band contest at my house. (20 and 80)
40 was so-so on Sunday PM, but Saturday 40 was so long that the Russians were
trying to give me points in another contest being run in Europe!
Tks for all the points.
de Hans, K0HB (943x76)
>From trey@cisco.com (Trey Garlough) Tue Nov 5 05:51:24 1996
From: trey@cisco.com (Trey Garlough) (Trey Garlough)
Subject: Something Screwy or is it me??
Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.4.847173084.trey@scv-cse-4.cisco.com>
> > > We get a rather mundane looking certificate #1 Antigua/#2 World
> > > At least we hope we get the certificate :-)
> >
> > Now there is some incentive to go for #1 World!!!
>
> Interesting. Even the IG9 boys play S/B and HC8 boys play M/S rather
> than challenge the world champs on M/M.
We thought about doing an M/M from HC8 and challenging the PJ9 boys
this time around, but even with our Tremendous Operating Ability[tm]
we didn't think we could take them while running all our rigs
barefoot, since that's all that would have been possible with our
little 5 kw generator.
I believe the ZX0F boys are running on generator power as well.
--Trey, HC8N
>From edwoods@pbsac01.isp.PacBell.COM (edwoods) Mon Nov 4 19:35:00 1996
From: edwoods@pbsac01.isp.PacBell.COM (edwoods) (edwoods)
Subject: SS Funnies at K6GV
Message-ID: <9611042114.AA11231@gw3.pacbell.com>
Poor Tim, KM6AS, at the keyboard - NV3sumpin' calls him and he starts typing
N4---.
He's operated NV6O so many times that he commented, "Even I fell for
that...."
A few hours later, on 80, with much rf present in the shack from the delta
that is attached to the roof 10 feet above the operating position, CT
decided to open all its windows, pass, split, gab,check,mult and whatever
while simultaneously dumping the contents of F6 (SV SV) over and over again
to whoever was supposed to be on the receiving end of a proper SS exchange.
Since Tim only uses CT maybe twice a year, he was in overload mode. Didn't
know what to do!
I suppose I should have got off of the couch to help him, but I was laughing
too hard to move............
Eric, K6GV
edwoods@pacbell.com
>From aa0cy@robertwanderer.gardnerville.nv.us (Robert Wanderer) Tue Nov 5
>03:04:02 1996
From: aa0cy@robertwanderer.gardnerville.nv.us (Robert Wanderer) (Robert
Wanderer)
Subject: Multiple Band SS QSO's
Message-ID: <01BBCA83.6F9B5D00@robertwanderer.gardnerville.nv.us>
And how much stock in software purveyors do you hold?
Keep it as it is--to do otherwise would ruin its uniqueness and
flavor. There are enough contests for the M/M folks!
73, Bob AA0CY
----------
From: Jim Preston[SMTP:prestonj@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 1996 7:15 AM
To: ke3ga@contesting.com
Cc: CQ Contest Mailing List
Subject: Re: Multiple Band SS QSO's
Beryl D. Simonson wrote:
>
> I know it has been discussed in the past, but what is the rationale
> for NOT having multiple band qso's with the same station in SS. It
> would sure seem to increase the action. What are your thoughts?
>
> Beryl
>
I would be in favor of this change. I think it would make the contest
(which is what it now is - no longer a traffic handling exercise) more
interesting.
Jim WA6UFY
--
prestonj@ix.netcom.com
>From 0006509309@mcimail.com (Wayne Mills) Mon Nov 4 21:50:00 1996
From: 0006509309@mcimail.com (Wayne Mills) (Wayne Mills)
Subject: Working Wyoming split!
Message-ID: <25961104215052/0006509309DC6EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
Hi Guys!
Oops! Got caught! Actually George's post refers to an interesting
situation about which there was some discussion here recently: operating
split in a contest. I was actually CQing on 14,038.4. Because of the size
of the pileup, many people were having trouble coying me, not to mention the
fact that I was having similar problems. It was a huge pile. So I started
listening up 1 kHz. I tried to spread them out, but interestingly these
contesters were having nothing to do with that. No problem, but what I
observed was several people operating in the interval between me and the
pile. I guess George was one of those people. I apparently answered him on
one of his CQs. My log shows a steady two per minute stream QSOs for some
time before that QSO.
I don't see any problem with operating split in a contest, but it is obvious
that it can lead to some confusion.
73, Wayne, N7NG
n7ng@mcimail.com
>From seay@Alaska.NET (Del Seay) Tue Nov 5 04:40:21 1996
From: seay@Alaska.NET (Del Seay) (Del Seay)
Subject: hill vs. ocean qth
References: <9611041221.0HCUV00@paonline.com>
Message-ID: <327EC535.7C25@alaska.net>
bill.lumnitzer@paonline.com wrote:
>
> Ve> Subject: Hill vs. Ocean QTH
>
> <snip>
> Ve> I think the HILL vs. OCEAN question can be answered only by having two
> Ve> nearly identical and GOOD setups operated one at the high hill, one at
> Ve> the ocean, not too far apart.
Takes more than that because there is a whole bunch more involved.
During the early days of commercial transcontinental radio, RCA and
others did some real comprehensive studies. They did actual path tests,
ground conductivity studies, and on and on. They came up with the
sites that were best suited for the purpose. And - Hilltop or next to
a body of water was not the criteria used.
As I recall, Oroville, California was the best west coast site, altho
the final site picked was in the 'Bay Area because of logistics. (Guess
who ended up with that site!)
I wonder if the study results were ever made public and if they are
available today? de KL7HF
>From k5zd@ultranet.com (Randy Thompson) Tue Nov 5 02:31:13 1996
From: k5zd@ultranet.com (Randy Thompson) (Randy Thompson)
Subject: T88T and CT
Message-ID: <01BBCA97.E46F6A40@k5zd.ultranet.com>
I wonder if anyone else noticed a problem with trying to log T88T.
The log accepted the call and entered the zone correctly as 27. =
However, no multipler credit was given. More investigation revealed =
that the country assigned was USA! I tried modifying the .DAT file, but =
no luck. The call T88T always defaults to the USA.
I then tried entering T88TT and it worked! What is going on here?
Using the latest version of CT and the country file.
Randy, K5ZD
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
Randy Thompson =
Amateur Radio Call Sign: K5ZD
E-mail: k5zd@ultranet.com
11 Hollis Street, Uxbridge, MA 01569
h (508) 278-2355 w (508) 337-6600
>From AA6KX@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Bruce Sawyer) Mon Nov 4 19:20:14 1996
From: AA6KX@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Bruce Sawyer) (Bruce Sawyer)
Subject: Where was WYO es MB?
Message-ID: <19961104192008.AAB2203@LOCALNAME>
At 05:24 PM 11/4/96 +0000, you wrote:
>>Where in the heck was WYO and MB? Missed the Sweep this year! RATS!
>(snip)
>>
>>lee
>>k0wa@southwind.net
>>
>With something like three hours to go in the SS, Wayne N7NG called me on
20M for
>my final multiplier (WYO). He was giving out numbers in the 70's so obviously
>had just come on. I said "Bless You!" and paused. Wayne then adroitly
stole my
>run frequency and I just leaned back and laughed! It was worth it to be
had by
>an expert to get the sweep! Thanks for WYO, Wayne!
>
This is nothing but vicious slander! Wayne wouldn't do that. I had slmost
the same experience...Wayne came along and gave me his sequence number 68.
He wasn't even through sending the full exchange, though, before about a
dozen guys started calling him on my frequency . I did have to fight like
crazy to hold the frequency, but my fight wasn't with Wayne. It was with
the other guys trying to take the frequency from me and give it to Wayne.
He moved on up the band answering other people, and I guess he finally found
somebody who had less territorial instincts than I did. But don't accuse
Wayne of taking your frequency. You GAVE it to him when you let the other
guys calling him blow you away.
Bruce, AA6KX
>From nt5c@easy.com (John Warren) Tue Nov 5 01:18:18 1996
From: nt5c@easy.com (John Warren) (John Warren)
Subject: Hill vs. Ocean QTH
Message-ID: <1365005421-3549104@BANJO.EASY.COM>
Bill N6CQ/3 wrote:
|K6STI's TA program shows Carl KM1H to be on top of a hill that smoothly falls
|off in all directions. This topography seems to have the effect of placing
|a big, fat lobe RIGHT-ON-THE-DECK, almost independently of antenna height!
|I believe that horizontal antennas with this property will almost certainly
|always outperform even verticals over sea water because of the 6dBi gift of
|additive ground reflections.
I agree 100% with Bill for Yagis above any moderate height, say more than a
half-wavelength. George WB5VZL ran the N6BV software for my hill, and it
shows enhancements of 10-12 dB at 2-4 degrees. I seem to recall seeing even
bigger numbers for the W6QHS QTH in a paper at Dayton? Two comments though:
First, you don't get something for nothing (amazing discovery, huh!). The
higher angle lobes get pulled down too, and in some cases reduced in gain.
For me as a DXer I don't care; I'll take my big low-angle long-path lobes
any day, because I can work the high-angle stuff sooner or later anyway.
However, a contester might care, and might need to fill in the gaps by
stacking.
For most of us, vertical systems are more practical on 80/160 than Yagis.
Then I would expect the quality of near and middle-distance grounds to
matter more, hence oceanfront QTHs should be competitive, or probably
superior. Confirmation?
John, NT5C.
>From k3sa@access.digex.net (Steven Affens) Mon Nov 4 21:57:12 1996
From: k3sa@access.digex.net (Steven Affens) (Steven Affens)
Subject: Multiple Band SS QSO's
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961104164944.7699A-100000@access5.digex.net>
Steven C. Affens
k3sa@access.digex.net
On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Bill Turner wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Nov 1996 19:39:51 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >I know it has been discussed in the past, but what is the rationale
> >for NOT having multiple band qso's with the same station in SS. It
> >would sure seem to increase the action. What are your thoughts?
> -----------------------------------------------
> Sweepstakes was originally a message-handling contest, not a band/rate
> contest. When you've sent the "message" to one station on one band, the job
> is done. Changing this would change the SS tradition itself, something the
> ARRL is not likely to do.
>
> 73, Bill W7LZP
> wrt@eskimo.com
>
Count me in for at least a trial year for an all band sweepstakes. I've
suggested it before, but the reaction was akin to my suggesting we remove
third base from baseball. Sunday sure gets slow. I spend most of my time
reloading the band map of CT with calls I've already worked and must pass
over because the rules prohibit working them on the "new" band. Some
folks try 2 radio's to tweek the rates, but that seems too tiresome.
Also, I wouldn't mind seeing the "message" change. Keep the same format,
but give the temperature instead of year, or some weather condition
exchange, then the info might be interesting to collect.
Thanks to all for the qso's over the years.
73 Steve K3SA
>From silver@ax.apc.org (Carlos Augusto S. Pereira) Mon Nov 4 19:36:07 1996
From: silver@ax.apc.org (Carlos Augusto S. Pereira) (Carlos Augusto S. Pereira)
Subject: Half Sloper info
Message-ID: <199611041936.RAA23720@ax.ibase.br>
Dear friends,
At last I decided to try the 80 meters half sloper and I'll raise it this
weekend for the CQWW CW.
However I have some questions:
1) According to the Antenna Book I must have a tower at least at 1/4 wavelenght
over the ground. It means that for maximum performance this height is required
or it means that with the shorter tower it won't work? In my inexperience on
antennas I believe that with a shorter tower the vertical radiation angle will
increase, for example from 30 degrees to 60 degreees! Am I right? If it is true
I'll try anyway because a low dipole will radiate directly to the sky (90
degrees) and I'm trying to avoid it.
2) The antenna book also mentions that the low end of the leg must have a
height of 10-15 ft. In order words if the SWR is not low enough you must raise
the low end to provide a good match. Did anybody experience something like that?
My antenna cannot have all the requirements pointed out by the antenna book but
I'll try anyway! Although I'd like to receive some notes about Half Sloper
installations considering all the problems I have. My short tower is 40 ft over
the concrete pavement (roof) and there is not a yagi on the top. The ground is
not a problem, I live 1 mile from the sea and I will ground the down lead with
an 8 ft ground rod.
Thanks and CU you all in the CQWW CW.
73,
Carlos - PY1CAS
ps. Sorry if I bother you again with the same old story.
>From kf3p@cais.cais.com (Tyler Stewart) Tue Nov 5 02:40:03 1996
From: kf3p@cais.cais.com (Tyler Stewart) (Tyler Stewart)
Subject: OUT OF BAND Q's and other grumblings..
Message-ID: <199611050240.VAA03202@cais.cais.com>
>Hi All!
>
>I kept a running tally of "out of band" ops during my time on 15m. We were
>set up on 21.195 working europe. 43 US stations, some from well known
>contest stations, came down and threw thier call in.
I only had about 5 US call below 14150 the whole weekend. PRobably because
I was well below at about 14135 most of the time.
I tried to be diplomatic
>and give them the gentle hint without actually giving the call but some
>persisted and I actually had to stop the run and tell W#??? that he was OUT
>OF BAND. So tell your OPS to pay attention to the band plan and have
>patience. We will come up to the US phone band after the European run dies.
>The object of the test is to work Europe (or other DX) so that is where we
>look first but we love those great rates from the GOOD ops in the US.
Yes, WE have to work EU first because US is only 2 points vs 3! (wwwaaaahhhh!)
>
> Many thanks to you guys who use FULL Calls. It really helps the rate meter.
>Whomever started the "last two" and "middle two" needs to be shot! It just
>adds time and keystrokes to each Q. We consistantly hear WEAKER stations
>giving FULL CALLS over stronger stations using partial calls. Chod Harris has
>a few GREAT tips in this months CQ (p. 106) on the subject.
I think the US guys can pat themselves on the back. Besides possibly the
accent, you could always tell a European station because they ALWAYS sent
partial calls! (OK, I'm exagerating just a little)
I think last two can help in certain cases, but it should be a last resort
if the DX is having a hard time pulling anyone out. If you are "loud", making
your first couple of calls, or working a station who is making QSO's at a rapid
pace, you should never resort to partial call sending.
73, Tyler KF3P/V26TS
|