CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

K5ZD CQWW CW Story (Long)

Subject: K5ZD CQWW CW Story (Long)
From: n3rr@erols.com (Bill Hider)
Date: Wed Dec 4 04:35:28 1996
Randy Thompson wrote:
> 
>                     CQ WORLD WIDE DX CONTEST -- 1996


Randy, why put all this on the contest reflector?  It really messed up
my ISP email server and gave me lots of frustration just to download it.
IT IS TOO LONG!!  It caused many errors and was too lengthy.  I don't
need to see your breakdown report.  Let those who want it request it. 
Also, your test was TOO LONG.  I just deleted it.

Bill, N3RR

>From 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob)  Wed Dec  4 04:55:31 1996
From: 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) (Hans Brakob)
Subject: Three way "tie" (almost)
Message-ID: <961204045530_71111.260_EHM54-1@CompuServe.COM>

Both Ron (N0AT) and John (N0IJ) have shared their rate sheets 
from the SS phone weekend with me.  Since our final tally of 
QSO's was so close (1361, 1366, 1361), I thought it would be 
interesting to line them up side-by-side, hour-by-hour. Ron 
and I live just a couple of miles apart near Minneapolis, and 
John lives about 150 miles north of us in the Duluth area. John 
and I were running high power, and Ron was running low power.

   K0HB          N0AT            N0IJ               CUMULATIVE
Hr QSOs Band     QSOs Band       QSOs Band        K0HB/N0AT/N0IJ
   ---- ----     ---- ----       ---- ----        -------------- 
21  82  20        87  15/20      114  20            82/  87/ 114
22  64  20        72  15/20       68  20           146/ 159/ 182
23  52  20       103  40          48  20/40/80     198/ 262/ 230
0   69  20        68  20/40       80  20           267/ 330/ 310
1   18* 40/80     63  20/40       31  20/40/80     285/ 393/ 341
2   53  80        39  40/80       55  80           338/ 432/ 396
3   62  80        41  40/80/160   25  40/80/160    400/ 473/ 421
4   32  40/80     40  40/80/160   43  80           432/ 513/ 464
5   31  40/80     28  40/80/160   27  80/160       463/ 541/ 491
6   32  40/80     40  40/80       54  80           495/ 581/ 545
7   27* 40/80     38  40/80       36  80           522/ 619/ 581
8   *             12* 40/80       57  80           522/ 631/ 638
9   *             *               14* 80           522/ 631/ 652
10  *             *               *
11  *             *               *
12  *             34* 40          11* 40/80        522/ 665/ 663 
13  70  40        69  20/40       38  20/40/80     592/ 734/ 701
14  66  20/40     47  20/40       44  20/40        658/ 781/ 745
15  73  20        78  20          57  20           731/ 859/ 802
16  74  20        41  20/40       74  20           805/ 900/ 876
17  73  15/20     60  15/20/40    77  20           878/ 960/ 953
18  71  20        85  40          73  20           949/1045/1026
19  41* 15/20     60  15/20       63  20           990/1105/1089
20  8*  20        27* 20/40       65  20           998/1132/1154
21  94  40        54* 15/20/40    62  20          1092/1186/1216
22 110  40        36  15/20/40    51  15/20       1202/1222/1257
23  71  40        30  20/40       41  20/40       1273/1252/1308
0   57  40        39  20          41  20/40/80    1330/1291/1349
1   31  40/80     27  40/80       12* 40          1361/1318/1361
2   *             48  40/80       *               1361/1366/1361

* = Time off taken in this hour.

          Band Summaries
        K0HB   N0AT   N0IJ     
160        0     16     16
 80      234     95    332
 40      457    712    167
 20      651    468    835
 15       19     75     11
        ----   ----   ----
Total   1361   1366   1361

I thought it interesting how different our band totals were
in reaching such a close finish.  

73, de Hans, K0HB


>From 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob)  Wed Dec  4 05:38:25 1996
From: 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) (Hans Brakob)
Subject: Computer Usage
Message-ID: <961204053825_71111.260_EHM74-1@CompuServe.COM>

The message from Tom, NM1Q, requesting info on computer
usage by contesters tickled a memory cell (or two) regarding
an article in NCJ a few years ago.  Such things have a nasty
habit of rambling around between my eyeball and eyelids when
I'm trying to sleep, so I had to track the quote down.

In the Jan/Feb 1989 issue, WB0IKN and NI0E wrote:

"If you are trying to win the contest or be in the top ten,
on-line logging is probably not for you."

  and,

"The real benefit of on-line logging is for the stations
who are not particularly interested in winning."

  and,

"On the whole, we do not feel that serious operators will
gain much benefit from on-line Sweepstakes logging...."

Migawd, that was written only 7 years ago!  

"CT" was mentioned, but the "hot" logging programs reviewed in 
that issue were "Contest 300" and "SCORE".  Where are they 
today?

73, de Hans, K0HB




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>