Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 05:53:46 -0700
In the specific examples you cite, you will not e penalized for their mistakes. The log checking software will line up the QSOs despite a single letter being incorrect, and will only penalize the sta
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:19:24 -0700
In neither of your two examples will the other station lose points for your errors. Any kind of single-character-mistake in callsigns will still mtach as a QSO, and it is only the station that logged
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:31:25 -0700
No. The ARRL General Contest Rules 3.10 is: "3.10.The use of non-Amateur Radio means of communication (for example, Internet or telephone) to solicit a contact (or contacts) during the contest period
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:57:06 -0700
The one part of ARRL EME Rule 3.2 that is different from every other "Single Operator Assisted" class in ARRL contests (or contests of any other sponsor) is the phrase "operating arrangements involvi
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 11:46:15 -0700
I don't think this is necessarily true for anyone getting into the sport in the past five to ten years or so. I started contesting in the 1996-1997 contest season, and I can only recall maybe three c
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 15:26:19 -0700
That should probably be restated as "less time and effort to retrain _old_ ops..." In my case, going to a multi-op that uses CT incurs a "re-training cost." Not a very high one, of course, but noneth
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:21:20 -0700
I can top that. In 2003, I was on 20 meters phone just beginning a S&P pass through the band around 1830 UTC when I came across NU1AW. I call, but get beaten by another station - W4RA. The operator a
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:29:28 -0700
The QST product review of the new Yaesu FTDX9000D transceiver arrived in my mailbox Saturday and is also online for ARRL members: http://www.arrl.org/members-only/prodrev/pdf/pr0508.pdf I'm curious i
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:31:25 -0700
No. The ARRL General Contest Rules 3.10 is: "3.10.The use of non-Amateur Radio means of communication (for example, Internet or telephone) to solicit a contact (or contacts) during the contest period
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:57:06 -0700
The one part of ARRL EME Rule 3.2 that is different from every other "Single Operator Assisted" class in ARRL contests (or contests of any other sponsor) is the phrase "operating arrangements involvi
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 15:44:55 -0700
That's basically the same standard as contest log checking. If you bust the other station's call or exchange, but they record all of the QSO details correctly, the other station still gets credit for
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 15:57:04 -0700
That's not exactly what's going on in contest log checking. Consider stations A and B make a QSO, station A gets everything correct, but station B busts the exchange of station A. In every contest lo
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 15:32:41 -0700
The 3 QSO penalty rule makes perfect sense to me. Anything else encourages guessing whenever there is uncertainty. Consider the following options: 0 QSO penalty: If in doubt, it is _always_ to your a
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 12:28:12 -0700
The scenario I have in mind is this: most of the way through the QSO, you suddenly doubt whether or not you correctly copied part of the callsign* - for example, was it really K3BU or maybe K4BU? At
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 16:22:23 -0700
Actually, depending on the contest, this might already be happening. I know that in some contests, the log checking software can identify stations in the contest that do sufficiently strange things (
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 08:18:55 -0700
The results of the 2004 ARRL 10 Meter Contest are online for ARRL members: http://www.arrl.org/members-only/contests/results/2004/10-Meters/ -- Kenneth E. Harker WM5R kenharker@kenharker.com http://w
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 17:20:16 -0700
Eric was not arguing that DC should become a separate ARRL section from MDC section, and its status in the ARRL FIeld Organization structure is completly disconnected from whether or not it can or sh
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 21:14:02 -0700
Really? That's not what I read: http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/RTTY%20Rules%20200491404.pdf "One multiplier point for each U.S. state (48) and each Canadian call area (14) on each band. Please use o
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 07:35:50 -0700
In the discussion of whether or not the District of Columbia should be a separate multiplier from the state of Maryland in the NCJ North American QSO Party, all sorts of rationales for multiplier sta
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:22:43 -0700
Mark this on your calendar now... Austin Summerfest DX and Contest Forum Program Announcement == The Central Texas DX & Contest Club (CTDXCC) is proud to be the continuing sponsor of the DX and Conte