In a message dated 96-11-18 12:51:01 EST, you write:
>During the CW weekend of SS, particularly the last few hours, I
>received too many QSO B4 responses. I understand how it can happen but
>I preface my exchange with the call of the station I'm working.
>While these Q's are not uniques are there any attempts made to correct
>for Q's claimed by only one of the operators?
>
Hi, Len --
You call me while I'm running, I enter your call and CT pops up with
**DUPE**, I don't work you. If I haven't worked you before, how did your
call get into my computer?
Are you using a computerized logging program? Do you check to see if
you've worked a station before you call them? My biggest gripe is that many
running stations just say "QRZ" at the end of their current contact without
identifying. In that case, it may be a dupe since you haven't been able to
ID the guy first.
Good ops will log you and tell you it's a dupe in a one or two seconds
from their logging program. I would tend to believe them since most of them
are running and just answering stations that are callling them. The onus of
logging is on the calling station as well. Perhaps more so to avoid second
calls and dupes. Check your log before calling. In cases where he's not in
your log, you may be SOL because the station may not want to dupe you or give
you the missing information in your log. This is all part of learning how to
operate SS successfully.
73, Steve K7LXC
>From rlboyd@CapAccess.org (Rich L. Boyd) Mon Nov 18 18:56:37 1996
From: rlboyd@CapAccess.org (Rich L. Boyd) (Rich L. Boyd)
Subject: K5NZ Done!
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91-FP.961118135538.10991M-100000@cap1.capaccess.org>
On Sun, 17 Nov 1996 km9p@CONTESTING.COM wrote:
> At 12:05 AM 11/17/96 -0500, you wrote:
> >Well here it is 0500z Sat night of SS and I've had it again! Worked N5JA (ex
> >AA5BL) at 0450 and he had 909 Q's! I looked at my 577 and it was just too
> >much again!
>
> You need to find a new past time. If you are only contesting to win the
> world you will never have any fun.
>
> 73
>
>
> Bill Fisher, KM9P & K4AAA
> http://www.contesting.com
>
>
>
>
>
That's not what I heard him saying. I think he was expressing his
frustration at not knowing what was causing the disparity in result.
Rich Boyd, KE3Q
>From 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) Mon Nov 18 18:57:54 1996
From: 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) (Hans Brakob)
Subject: SO 2 RADIO BACKLASH
Message-ID: <961118185753_71111.260_EHM43-1@CompuServe.COM>
N6IG said:
>Interesting discussion; I hope it doesn't lead to more rules, that's
>what we don't need more of. Let's let people push the envelope and
>the state-of-the-art in contesting and not thwart their efforts with
>regulations!
Generally I'd agree with that view.
In this case, however, I take the opposing view. I wouldn't support a
new rule to prohibit two radios so long as the second radio was used to
"cruise for multipliers (or whatever)", but I'm instinctively opposed
to the use of a second radio to "occupy two operating frequencies".
I recognize that "only the best" can successfully pull this off, and
I even admire those who master the skills and technical challenges
required, but given the crowded conditions in domestic contests
(as in SS), this technique strikes me as a "selfish" use of the
spectrum. Not only does it deprive another less-dominating fellow
contester of a run frequency, but if widely known by the pig-farmers,
could become a rallying cry for those who would limit our band use
on contest weekends.
Your mileage may vary.
73, de Hans, K0HB
Speaking for K0HB
>From kurscj@oampc12.csg.mot.com (Chad Kurszewski WE9V) Mon Nov 18 18:57:23
>1996
From: kurscj@oampc12.csg.mot.com (Chad Kurszewski WE9V) (Chad Kurszewski WE9V)
Subject: SO 2 radio backlash?
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961118185723.006b1870@oampc12.csg.mot.com>
>2. Or, fine tuning the playing field to provide a more even playing
>field to ensure that the model for these radio games strike
>measureability in operator skill.
With the (possible) exception of WRTC, this will never be achieved.
Will we have to take down our stacked monobanders on 40M and put up
a dipole at 40'?
For some people, ham radio is a hobby. For serious contesters, it's
definitely more than a hobby and will divert funds accordingly. Some
people will have bigger antennas, some will have the high-tech radios,
(some have 2 or 3), and some will have a geographical advantage.
To steal a quote from Marquette University:
"It's all a matter of degree."
Serious contesters are after "the edge".
I think Ward, N0AX, hit the proverbial nail and that we need to
"see such tactics used more appropriately."
Appropriate, not banned.
---
Chad Kurszewski, WE9V e-mail: Chad_Kurszewski@csg.mot.com
The Official "Sultans of Shwing" Web Site: http://www.QTH.com/sos
>From thompson@mindspring.com (David L. Thompson) Mon Nov 18 19:29:19 1996
From: thompson@mindspring.com (David L. Thompson) (David L. Thompson)
Subject: Incomplete exchange
Message-ID: <199611181916.OAA21607@itchy.mindspring.com>
>The SS rules specifically call for 5 elements in the exchange, and each
much be sent in the >correct order to constitute a valid exchange.
Sending the call is a required part of the SS exchange. Remember this came
from message handling where you were passing a message and the call
indicated the "from." Back in the late 50's and early 60's most contesters
were also traffic handlers, too.
I remember the dicussion between ARRL and a W7 about 1960 on this matter.
ARRL (may have been W1YYM now W1YL,,, Jim, K4OJ) but a clear message was
sent to include your call or be disqualified! I am sure this is still the
case.
Dave K4JRB
>From n7tr@rnodx.org (Rich Hallman N7TR) Mon Nov 18 19:23:43 1996
From: n7tr@rnodx.org (Rich Hallman N7TR) (Rich Hallman N7TR)
Subject: Incomplete Exchange
Message-ID: <BMSMTP84834477110Phallman@mail.greatbasin.net>
This is interesting.....
I dont remember working anybody without sending their callsign in the
exchange.....
I would have noticed this, because it would have messed me up in the input
of their info in the computer.....
For me anyway, it didnt seem to be a problem.....But if the rules state this
is the
exchange, then thats what should be sent.....Pretty much the same as following
the rules for the Sprint.
See Ya! Rich
> From: 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob), on 11/18/96 12:58 PM:
> N6NT (Nice call!!) said:
>
> >There were a very few people "in" the contest who weren't repeating
> >their call as part of the exchange. But it was clear to me that they
> >were neophytes and did not have decent scores going for themselves.
>
> I'm not talking about the newbies who "flub" the exchange from
> inexperience, or the "not in the contest but wanna give you a point"
> guys. These you nurture and encourage and coach and play "5 Questions"
> with.
>
> But there were at least two "top ten" class stations who were saving a
> few milliseconds on each contact by leaving out the callsign element.
> Since newbies quickly emulate these guys and their "cool shortcut",
> the practice should be nipped immediately by letting these guys know
> that incomplete exchanges don't make it into our logs.
>
> Your mileage may vary.
>
> 73, de Hans, K0HB
> Speaking for K0HB
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************************
Richard Hallman N7TR@RNODX.ORG
11870 Heartpine St "Big is good...Tall is better!"
Reno NV 89506 ex: KI3V, A92FN, HL9RH, KI3V/VP9
702 677-1106 /WP4, /HP, /VO2, N3AMK
************************************************************************
>From hwardsil@wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) Mon Nov 18 19:25:49 1996
From: hwardsil@wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) (Ward Silver)
Subject: KLM 40-M3
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.961118112409.1046A-100000@gonzo.wolfenet.com>
I love them...the pieces make great verticals and other antennas after
they break ;-) You can make a great 30-meter full-size rotatable dipole
out of them, for example, and the WWDXC 40-meter Field Day phased array
was 1/3 of a KLM 40-M3.
73, Ward N0AX
>From cooper@gmpvt.com (Tom Cooper) Mon Nov 18 19:47:03 1996
From: cooper@gmpvt.com (Tom Cooper) (Tom Cooper)
Subject: K5NZ Done!
Message-ID: <199611181947.OAA08670@web.gmpvt.com>
>>K5NZ wrote:
>
>> At 12:05 AM 11/17/96 -0500, you wrote:
>> >Well here it is 0500z Sat night of SS and I've had it again! Worked
N5JA (ex
>> >AA5BL) at 0450 and he had 909 Q's! I looked at my 577 and it was just too
>> >much again!
>>
Well, JA is a particularly good SS suffix. Didn't K7JA rule the SS for some
years?
I think being able to talk, type and tune fast at the same time is a wonderful
set of skills, like playing bridge. Of course, one famous bridge book begins:
"To play a game well is an indication of a mis-spent life."
Tom WA1GUV
>From 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) Mon Nov 18 19:55:37 1996
From: 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) (Hans Brakob)
Subject: Incomplete Exchange
Message-ID: <961118195536_71111.260_EHM63-1@CompuServe.COM>
Dave, NR3E commented:
> I'm pretty new to contesting, but isn't the "real"
> purpose for this whole affair to be an excersise in
> traffic handling?
>
> It seems to me (just my humble opinion) that if the
> whole message isn't sent, in the correct order as it is
> intended, then the message is incomplete.
Damn, I wish I had said it that way!
Dave nailed it right on the head. (IMNSHO)
73, de Hans, K0HB
Speaking for K0HB
>From seay@Alaska.NET (Del Seay) Tue Nov 19 03:52:55 1996
From: seay@Alaska.NET (Del Seay) (Del Seay)
Subject: Incomplete Exchange
References:
<03AB13290A867007*/c=us/admd=attmail/prmd=tci/o=mailhub/ou=msmaildos/s=Fatchett/g=Mike/@MHS>
Message-ID: <32912F17.FC5@alaska.net>
Why not just the state. No call, report, anything else. After all, the
intent of contesting is a big 'Q' total. Certainly not to gain
proficiency as an operator! de KL7HF
Fatchett, Mike wrote:
>
> If this is the law. Then I think all we will get out of the call part
> is the op saying the call as fast as possible, probably so fast that you
> could not understand it anyway. What would be the point? If either
> party fail to get the callsign correct the Q is no good anyway.
>
> If the ARRL wants another piece of information copied they could use your
> name, city, mothers maiden name, and get as much out of the exchange.
>
> Personally I think the exchange is cumbersome enough and overall scares
> off many would be participants. A casual op probably has no idea what
> the "A" or the "B" are for, nor the "Check". If we want more
> participants why don't we make it easier for the masses to join in?
> Nobody wants to look like a fool be asking a ton of questions or feeling
> like they are being grilled by the FBI just for a simple contact.
>
> Mike
> W0MU
> Sorry I missed you all in SS :(
>From k0wa@southwind.net (Lee Buller) Mon Nov 18 20:00:38 1996
From: k0wa@southwind.net (Lee Buller) (Lee Buller)
Subject: 40 meters and SS SSB
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961118200038.006f09ac@southwind.net>
Ladies........and Gentlemen
What are people's experience with 40 meters this weekend? I am interested
in comments as to band conditions on 20-40-and-80. Any 160 meter activity?
Seven-trees
Lee
k0wa@southwind.net
>From k0wa@southwind.net (Lee Buller) Mon Nov 18 20:26:20 1996
From: k0wa@southwind.net (Lee Buller) (Lee Buller)
Subject: Catagories...
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961118202620.006a4898@southwind.net>
At 12:39 PM 11/18/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>I can't see why there can't be QRP, Low Power and Hi Power divisions in MO
>and MS catagories.
>
>73 Paul
>
> Paul Knupke, Jr. / Pinellas County ARES Asst. EC
> knupke@babbage.csee.usf.edu / Pinellas County Skywarn
> Largo, FL USA / Fidonet 1:3603/570
> Amateur Radio Callsign: KR4YL / Florida Contest Group Member
>
I have been campaigning for such catagories now for almost 5 years. No one
takes the idea seriously. I have talked with the MidWest rep from the
Contest Advisory Board to no avail. I think it is a swell idea way past its
time.
Lee
k0wa@southwind.net
>From 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) Mon Nov 18 20:36:15 1996
From: 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) (Hans Brakob)
Subject: Incomplete Exchange
Message-ID: <961118203614_71111.260_EHM85-1@CompuServe.COM>
KL7HF said:
>Why not just the state. No call, report, anything else. After all, the
>intent of contesting is a big 'Q' total. Certainly not to gain
>proficiency as an operator! de KL7HF
Actually, the "original" intent of SS in fact WAS to showcase
proficiency as a traffic handler, thus the rather complex exchange
which is a loose parallel to the old standard message header.
It's why I love SS but am just sort of lukewarm about other
"5NN TU" style contests. In SS you actually have to demonstrate
a skill of copying a non-predictable exchange.
73, de Hans, K0HB
Speaking for K0HB
>From ttrent@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (Thomas Trent) Mon Nov 18 20:38:40 1996
From: ttrent@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (Thomas Trent) (Thomas Trent)
Subject: test
Message-ID: <01IBZPGGXWYQ8WW1A1@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>
This is a test message. Look for me in the next contest, I love my new
vanity call and I wish everyone would send complete exchanges.
Tom K7ZL
|