C'mon guys. The premier, biggest, best and most prestigious DX Contest, CQWW, has the dumbest exchange. There isn't a piece of software made that does not automatically assign the zone number based o
I'm sorry... what "current mess"? Never mind that the software may not always be right... especially but not limited to the US and the number of stations who's calls don't match their perceived WAZ o
Snip Snip It is broke! It has been broken for over 20 years - since computer logging became the norm. CT, the first major contest logger, had no provision for logging RST Sent as anything other than
Paul, 599, or more accurately 5NN has been the default signal report for at least the 35 years that I have been contesting / DXing and probably goes back even longer than that. I think it might be mo
The difference is that users were locked in to sending 599 in every QSO. Even if they wanted to send something else, it wouldn't let them. What's not clear is whether you are defending the exchange o
Paul, My point is that the default of sending 5NN had nothing to do with CT. And, CT did force mandate the sending of 5NN. You could program anything in that you wanted. You could hit Shift-F2 and ch
Okay, you guys made me go dig out my old logbooks... I think this was Field Day on June 26, 1965 I operated SSB and both gave and received "honest" reports. At 1811z I received a 47 from WA2QKG in Ne
Why exchange it at all? To make sure you got it right the first time, for one thing. Computer logging (which goes back more than 20 years, BTW) is not the issue at hand. If you want to discuss prefil
Back in the mid-70's University of Illinois club station W9YH operated phone Sweepstakes from a field station of the University EE department about 15 miles north of Champaign-Urbana. We got to use a
this last ARRLDX on 160 i have particullarly good run (10 stations in an hour), and i would have given out some "139s" if one was giving out actual RSTs. at my house 449 is a LOUD signal but 5NN is u
Critical word "not" was left out: And, CT did *NOT* force the sending of 5NN. Paul, My point is that the default of sending 5NN had nothing to do with CT. And, CT did force mandate the sending of 5NN
Sure - but have you checked what is logged, rather than what is sent? I made a mistake in mentioning CT because people have latched on to that, and ignored the issue of meaningless exchanges. More sp
Author: Pete Michaelis - N8TR <pete.n8tr@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:03:27 -0500
The difference is that users were locked in to sending 599 in every QSO. Even if they wanted to send something else, it wouldn't let them. I don't understand this. CT has long had the ability to log
Not true ..... You could send 579, or anything you want to send, with every QSO. Problem with that is (and I've seen it happen when an op gets a non-599) the operator will beat the heck out of the sp
That pretty much sums it up. Each QSO has a unique serial number. Copy it correctly or pay the price. After all, this is at some level to be about communications and improvement of the same, not simp
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:07:23 -0500
Unfortunately, the focus seems to be on score and I feel that doing anything that requires the operator to think beyond a simple, short exchange will be met with a huge opposition. I think it would m
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:07:40 -0500
Just a quick question... with follow-ups. At any time in contesting was the signal report considered important enough to be a true RST rather than the standard 599? If so, why did that change? If not
Not serial numbers, too easy to copy and listen from qso to qso to see if you got the right one. make the contest sponsor issue each entrant an rsa number generator like is used for corporate vpn log
In 1965 I used an old WWII WS19. It did not show any "honest" S-meter reading. And I wonder what you read nowadays with AGC "off" Or have a look on amateur equipment and their S-meter readings, most
sorry the reports are "550db/µV9" 5.316mV9" of course 73 Peter I wonder what you are going to log if I send you my "honest report" as 5950db/µV or 59.316mV ___________________________________________