Has anyone else (besides N1XS) tried this program? It worked on another WinXP machine in the house that does not have the Cygwin library installed. Reply direct to me, please! - Jim At 08:10 AM 12/3/
At 09:25 PM 12/3/2003, Bryn Joynes N4VM wrote: I'm your casual contest participant, so don't know all the terminology. So was wondering after reading the explinations of a pass, if a station I just w
[The .ZIP file I uploaded Wednesday morning had a corrupted .EXE file in it (bad switch to ZIP program). It should be fixed now. Sorry for the troubles!] I wrote a short program which attempts to loc
Last night I uploaded Version 1.1 of my PASS analysis program: http://www.k1ea.com/utilities/pass.zip To read the original announcement: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/2003-12/msg00072.html
Ed Parish K1EP pointed out the current version doesn't work for VHF contests (thanks, Ed!). I'll put out a fix this weekend. 73 - Jim AD1C == Jim Reisert AD1C, 7 Charlemont Court, North Chelmsford, M
At 11:46 AM 12/5/2003, Tom Frenaye K1KI wrote: Looking back at previous logs here we usually have about 100 dupes in a 3000 QSO log, and 140 dupes in a 4000 QSO log and 175 in a 5000 QSO log. I bet K
I released a new version of the PASS program: http://www.k1ea.com/utilities/pass.zip This fixes a bug parsing VHF contest logs. Remember, this only runs in a DOS box under Windows - it will not run i
It would be nice if ARRL clarified the rules in this area, all it says is: 5.2.4. ITU regions (maritime mobiles only). CT accepts R1, R2 and R3. But I don't know if that's what the log checker expect
At 07:57 PM 12/12/2003, Steve Maki K8LX wrote: One method that is relatively painless (as painless as a MS OS can be anyway) is to simply reinstall the OS on top of the old one, let the new devices g
The PASS program has been updated one more time. You can download version 1.3 from: http://www.k1ea.com/utilities/pass.zip Fixes this time around: * DOS compatibility * out-of-order logs didn't work
At 12:44 AM 12/16/2003, Rex Maner wrote: I logged 4 Q's with WA. stations on SSB but only desire a CW Only entry. Should I leave them in the Log with a note, or remove them and send a second log with
Mike, I think you mis-understood the question. If W1XYZ makes 4 SSB QSOs, but doesn't submit them with his "CW" log, then the four stations who worked W1XYZ on SSB will get NILs for those QSOs. He *m
The log checking software must assume that a submitted log is complete. The software can therefore prove the presence or absence of QSOs between two stations. A non-submitted log can't prove that the
At 03:33 PM 12/17/2003, David L. Thompson wrote: I think if this is true we are making the checking too complicated. The log checking should understand that he is a 80CW entry and all other contacts
I finished in 2nd place in 1998 WPX SSB using just a G5RV dipole and a Cushcraft R7 vertical. Steve N8BJQ assured me that I could enter this category, and I did. 73 - Jim AD1C == Jim Reisert AD1C, 7
If you want to win, choose the least-competitive category. If you want to improve your operating skills, then choose the MOST competitive category! 73 - Jim AD1C == Jim Reisert AD1C, 7 Charlemont Cou
N5TJ operating from P4 (I think) made 457/hour SSB in the CQWW a few years ago. 300/hour should be possible on CW, though I don't know of anyone who has done it. I'm sure it was done by DX, it's hard
There's no rule that says you have to submit a log! If you're just working guys but not submitting a log, then there are essentially no limits as to what you can do. But if you don't submit a log, yo
Maybe in terms of callers, but not in terms of exchange - serial numbers and states are too hard to copy. CQWW has the easiest exchange by far, and you can pretty much figure it out from the callsign