CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

CQ WW Scoring (resolved)

Subject: CQ WW Scoring (resolved)
From: ames@force.DECNET.LOCKHEED.COM (ames@force.DECNET.LOCKHEED.COM)
Date: Fri Sep 30 09:38:37 1994
Ray, WF1B, helped resolve this issue on all three points. First, there
were not changes in the rules - only the way it was written.  At Ray's
suggestion, I also called Roy Gould, KT1N, and he says that people have
been lumping all the multiplier together in the summary sheets.  What they
want are three groups separated from each other: country mults, dxcc mults,
and a combined group of US&Canadians. It was a little more clear in Digital
Journal (the co-sponsor).  The rules are the same as given in the RTTY
Contester's Guide (1992). 

Roy Gould, when asked about maritine mobles, said that they really were not 
expected to be worked in the contests, esp. RTTY.  For scoring, they do not
represent dxcc countries - so no country mult possible.  Zone scoring is
possible. They basically score for points, and since they are not associated
with a country but only a continent by their zone - then there is a decision
to be made between either 2 or 3 points.  Same rule as CQ WW CW/SSB Contests.

So, why did I raise an issue when none seems to exist? Well, WF1B's RTTY did
not score the contest correctly. He (and WA6SDM) where able to resolve this
once they saw my loggin sheets. It seems there was a bug in version 2.10 and
you need to change the country code from "K" to "W" in the .CTY & .PFX files.
Once the change is made using the Country.EXE routine, the .BIN file will
score correctly.  I even tried it last night. Easy.  Ray, WF1B, said he mailed
a postcard describing this "fix" but I never got mine. Of course, instead of
blaming the postman, I can't help but start thinking of the neighbors breaking
into my mailbox - stealing the post card - and laughing as they run down the
street tearing into little pieces. Contesters are never popular with the
neighbors. ;-)

73, alan N2ALE/6
will be working CQP from WA6GFY as I'm turning my station over to KE6GFQ
(my daughter) to work VHF contacts.

>From Hoeft, Roger V" <rvhoeft@po5.pcmail.ingr.com  Fri Sep 30 21:26:00 1994
From: Hoeft, Roger V" <rvhoeft@po5.pcmail.ingr.com (Hoeft, Roger V)
Subject: Need TS830S service manual
Message-ID: <2E8C73E1@hubsmp1.pcmail.ingr.com>



Anyone out there know where I can get a copy of the TS830S service manual. 
 My power transformer went belly-up and I don't really want to attempt a 
smoke test on the new transformer.

The manual is a  discontinued item with the East Coast parts house.  I'll 
kindly pay for postage and any copying costs incurred.

Thanks for the help.

    
 
****************************************************************************  
*******
       Roger Hoeft            aka KA9EKJ
       Intergraph Corporation      - Amateur Radio is a contact sport
       Huntsville, AL   35894
       rvhoeft@ingr.com                                 - If it's not 
fastpitch, it ain't softball !!
    
 
****************************************************************************  
********

>From Peter G. Smith" <n4zr@netcom.com  Fri Sep 30 20:57:36 1994
From: Peter G. Smith" <n4zr@netcom.com (Peter G. Smith)
Subject: Joslyn AC Line Suppressors
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9409301220.A25165-0100000@netcom>

I just called the Spokane Washington Telno given in the recent summary I
published on lightning protection, and was told that the division of the
Joslyn company that does such things is in Galena, CA, telephone
800/752-8068.  I just called and they're sending me a catalogue, but
hopefully this'll save somebody else a telephone call

PS -- there is an interesting and instructive message on the subject of 
AC line suppressors in the rec.radio.amateur.antennas usenet newsgroup 
from Gary, KE4ZV.  In it he describes a type of AC suppressor that, if 
confronted with a severe strike, responds by firing stuff (presumably hot 
stuff) out the end not enclosed in the service panel or outlet box.  
Sounds like some cautions may be in order in installing these things, to 
prevent a fire in case the big one hits.

73, 
Pete                                       
N4ZR@netcom.com "Better, faster,cheaper -- choose any two"


>From Victor Burns-KI6IM <vburns@netcom.com>  Fri Sep 30 23:18:20 1994
From: Victor Burns-KI6IM <vburns@netcom.com> (Victor Burns-KI6IM)
Subject: Voice PED
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9409301558.A20272-0100000@netcom3>

ftp  qed.laser.ee.es.osaka-u.ac.jp
/pub/radio/ped

Latest versions always there from JA3MAS

****************************************************************************
* Victor Burns - KI6IM / V31VB               *   CUBA LIBRE CONTEST CLUB   * 
* Iliff, Thorn & Company                     *            V31DX            *
* PH (619)-438-8950   FAX (619) 438-8925     *     Home (619) 744-6836     *
* Snail Mail - 2386 Faraday Ave., Ste. 100   *     FAX  (619) 471-1428     *
* Carlsbad, CA  92008                        *         PO BOX  9794        *
* e_mail vburns@netcom.com                   *  Rancho Santa Fe, CA  92067 *
****************************************************************************

On 29 Sep 1994, Tim Coad wrote:

>                        Subject:                               Time:5:58 PM
> 
> Can someone send me the latest info on how to get a copy of PED for SSB?
> Tim - NU6S
> 
> 

>From Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM>  Fri Sep 30 23:25:59 1994
From: Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> (Trey Garlough)
Subject: commercial postings to CQ-Contest
Message-ID: <780963959.129998.GARLOUGH@TGV.COM>

There are a lot of new folks reading CQ-Contest these days.  There 
are now 750 direct subscribers to this mailing list, not to mention 
the numerous readers of JE1CKA's CQ-Contest-Digest and various 
subreflectors.  I thought now was an appropriate time to revisit the
area of commercial advertising over this mailing list.  In brief,
don't do it.

There are already plenty of forums avaliable to sell stuff, like 
rec.radio.swap and packet BBS's and PacketClusters.  If you are really
serious about selling something, you will pay $$$ and advertise in 
the National Contest Journal.  Advertising in the NCJ is *cheap* and
most of the hard core contesters in North America subscribe.

As the "owner" of the CQ-Contest@TGV.COM mailing list, I can't *make*
anyone comply with this rule -- it's a gentlemen's arrangement -- but
I can ask that you comply.  If you fail to comply, then may you 
receive gigabytes of flames.  1/2 :-)

And if someone makes a commercial posting to CQ-Contest, then feel free
to send them gigabytes of flames, but do *not* cc your flames back to
the mailing list!

See you on the bands.

--Trey, WN4KKN/6


>From Randy A Thompson <K5ZD@world.std.com>  Fri Sep 30 21:12:10 1994
From: Randy A Thompson <K5ZD@world.std.com> (Randy A Thompson)
Subject: CQ WW Team Competition (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9409302137.H25898-0100000@world.std.com>

Second call for single ops interested in participating on a Team for CQ 
WW Phone (will do CW teams in November).  Responses so far from KM9P, 
N6BV, K0EJ, K7GM, WZ0V, WX3N, KL7RA, K8JLF, GM0ECO, K1KI.  You can be 
all band, single band, high or low power, etc.  Still time to sign up.  
Should be fun!

From: Randy A Thompson <K5ZD@world.std.com>
Subject: CQ WW Team Competition

Last year I "organized" two YCCC teams for the CQ WW Team Competition.  
We even "won" for SSB and came in second on CW.  Not sure what we won, 
but it was fun to know you were on a team and others were depending on 
your score.

I would be willing to organize some other teams for this year's contest.  
In memory of the baseball owners, this will not be a democratic process.

If you would like to be on a team for CQ WW Phone (you must be single op, 
not assisted), please send me your call, the call you will be using in 
the contest, the category (all band, single band, high or low power), your 
name, and your internet address.  Indicate if you want to be considered 
as a "Barbarian" (hard core, serious), "Player" (serious but not full 
time), or "Doer" (one who does, i.e. one who will be on and having fun).  Do 
this by October 15, 1994.  

I will "draft" teams that will provide some interesting competition 
(whether on a regional basis or category basis).  Should be fun.  
Everyone will know what team they are on before the contest.

73,

Randy
k5zd@world.std.com

>From Steve Harrison <sharriso@sysplan.com>  Wed Sep 21 04:09:17 1994
From: Steve Harrison <sharriso@sysplan.com> (Steve Harrison)
Subject: CQP Results - AB6WM
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.90.941003150617.19338A-100000@eagle>

On Mon, 3 Oct 1994, Peter Jennings wrote:

>               10     0      0       Listened twice - not a sound.
> 
Good grief...isn't this the fourth or fifth CQP report where guys state 
they LISTENED on 10, but not whether they transmitted??? No wonder only 
K6XO made any Qs there! Steve KO0U/4


>From Steve Harrison <sharriso@sysplan.com>  Thu Sep 22 01:32:32 1994
From: Steve Harrison <sharriso@sysplan.com> (Steve Harrison)
Subject: Score Summaries
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.90.941004123058.7901G-100000@eagle>

On 4 Oct 1994, Kurszewski Chad wrote:

> Ok, who forgot what this reflector is called?
> 
> "CQ-CONTEST"
> 
> I vote (in case it isn't obvious) to allow CONTEST SCORES to be published on
> the CQ-CONTEST reflector.
> 
> Sincerely,  Chad  WE9V
I second the vote! All in favor, AYE! All opposed, go to the DX 
Reflector! Steve KO0U/4


>From Steve Harrison <sharriso@sysplan.com>  Sat Sep 24 02:29:38 1994
From: Steve Harrison <sharriso@sysplan.com> (Steve Harrison)
Subject: VHF Manufactured Contacts
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.90.941006123446.16998A-100000@eagle>

On Tue, 4 Oct 1994, John Zapisek (K2MM/WA1MUG) wrote:

> Consider that most if not all of the top unlimited-multi's send out their
> own rovers to increase their grid-square totals on the sparsely-inhabited
> microwave bands.  These are often "captive" rovers who work only their own
> guys back on the hill and nobody else.  By any measure, these are clearly
> manufactured Qs.  They are, however, generally considered quite legitimate.
> 
It is NOT explicitly true that these so-called "bought" rovers are 
considered legitimate, at least not by true "dyed-in-the-wool" VHFers. 
They are TOLERATED only because they occasionally operate from, and once 
in a while provide, a brand-new grid. They are RESENTED by many 
hard-core VHFers because their operation is strictly for contest purposes,
not to provide any excitement to anybody else. The fact is that many of 
these "affiliated" rovers DO work only their sponsor station or club 
members and precious few others. Further, since the people they intend to 
work are rarely very far away so that signals are truly "weak-signal", 
their equipment (including antennas) is usually very modest and 
inadequate to provide DX QSOs to those in far-flung grids. Finally, once 
these "affiliated" rovers work as many of their own gang as possible, 
they pick up and run to the next grid, leaving the DX stations pawing 
around in the noise hoping that tropo just took a dip and that the rover 
has not left. The realization that the rover spent very little time 
trying for real DX Qs then strikes home, and resentment builds even 
further.

Note that what I'm talking about above is primarily the "affiliated" 
rovers, not the independents. These days, there are undoubtedly more 
independent rovers than "affiliated"; but the new guys base their 
operating tactics upon what they see the "affiliated" guys do simply 
because they are in competition. Thus, resentment against the independent 
rovers has also built up through the years.
  
> Ban FM?  Personally, as a weak-signal dilettante, I could go for that.  At
> least 2m FM, anyway.
>
It seems to me that the real answer may be to ban 2M FM only by the 
multi-operator stations. This would have the immediate effect of leaving 
the FM simplex channels unoccupied by large, high-power stations that now 
sit on "their" channel for hours on end. Single operator, multi-band stations 
cannot afford to spend much time on a single channel (unless, of course, 
there is an unreal propagation enhancement of some sort, wherein all bets 
are off!). Thus, channels will open for everybody sooner rather than 
later, unlike what happens right now. In addition, it may be a good idea 
to ban 2M FM for single-op 2M-only operators, since they will otherwise 
split their time between what amount to only two bands: FM and 
weak-signal, thus tending to monopolize a channel or two in a similar 
manner to that of the multiops.

Another option is to simply limit FM operation to 10 minutes across 
the board, for all stations. This will have the highly desirable effect of 
encouraging contest activity in the weak-signal portion of all bands, 
including by the new non-code Techs (since there will be fewer stations 
to work at any one time). It would be extremely difficult to police this 
by examining logs only; however, peer pressure on the air would help to 
limit violations until K1EA gets done with his present commercial 
PacketCluster software and can get back into further enhancements to CT, 
such as including an easy way to log FM, SSB and CW in the VHF contests.

> Ban rovers?  Naw, non-captive roving is too much fun.

Not for most fixed stations, it isn't; especially when you know that the 
rover is not really interested in working you because it will take too 
much time for him to sit on his little hill and wait for good tropo to 
overcome his limited power and antennas. When I feel the other guy is not 
really serious about trying to work me, I don't feel like wasting my time 
on him, and neither do most other V/UHFers.

> Ban QSOs with "affiliated" rovers?  Maybe.  This tightens the loophole but
> doesn't close it.  You'd have to trust the mountain-toppers to not abuse the
> ambiguity in the definition of "affiliated".  That might not be a problem.

On the contrary, this would be a MAJOR problem; how is the ARRL or Joe 
Lynch going to prove that any rover was affiliated when the guy sends in 
a log stating he was independent? That would be like the ARRL trying 
to prove that I ran 3,000 watts output power, even if my final tube 
really IS a 4CX3500! I say it ran 1500 watts, so how are you going to 
prove I actually ran more power other than having an observer at my elbow 
throughout the contest?

> Or how about a requirement that a rover make QSOs with stations in at least
> three different grids from each grid they rove to? ...........
> If not, QSOs with that rover in that grid wouldn't count for anybody.  This
> might even help solve the "rover circling" problem.

This is probably the only real answer to FORCING rovers to at least TRY 
to make REAL QSOs. The details of whether a minimum number of grids or 
QSOs remain to be worked out, but I think this would go a long way to 
solving the problem. Perhaps a decreasing number of grids or QSOs as the 
frequency goes up, much like the number of grids required for VUCC on 
each band.

> P.S.  For our HF-only friends, it might be worth explaining why VHF-contest
> ethics are a little different.  Basically, VHF contests have the additional
> goal of encouraging equipment construction for the higher bands to help
> promote their non-contest use.

This is exactly what I was implying above when I said 
"dyed-in-the-wool" VHFers. Also, recall what Ron, WZ1V, said struck home 
to his heart when he met Dick, K3MQH, last weekend: that Ron recognized 
Dick as a TRUE VHFer, not merely a contester! There really ARE serious 
V/UHFers out here who also are serious contesters.

This reply is not intended to be a flame against rovers in general, but 
rather to attempt to explain what several of those other considerations 
of the existing rover operations are to which John, K2MM alluded in his 
final paragraph. There really IS another, equally-valid side to the rover 
issue than that so often expounded by the rovers.

73, Steve KO0U/4 <sharrison@sysplan.com>


>From Steve Harrison <sharriso@sysplan.com>  Sat Sep 24 02:51:54 1994
From: Steve Harrison <sharriso@sysplan.com> (Steve Harrison)
Subject: FYI
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.90.941006134545.16998B-100000@eagle>

On Wed, 5 Oct 1994, Trey Garlough wrote:

> > Concerning the rules, I always thought the full rules were in CQ magazine.
> > I'm sorry to say that this one sublety has escaped me these past 25 years.
> > Thanks for the info about the Handbook.   73,  David   XE1/AA6RX
> 
> I would like to go on record saying that this "enter in the single band 
> category, make some other QSOs on the side, then count your score as an
> all band score for club points" thing is news to me, and I know I have
> read the rules.  I guess this issue is not addressed in the rules.
> 
> --Trey, WN4KKN/6
> 
At one time (way back in the 60's and maybe 70's), all of the rules used 
to fit on one page of CQ. My very first CQWW CW was in 1968, and I still 
remember having to go visit Darryl, a local big gun contester, to 
understand 0, 2 and 3 point QSOs. Then, he pointed out that I could 
submit my 3-band log to be counted only as a single-band entry, but 
my other bands would be counted for my club's score. I gess the 
preponderance of rules hath just overflowed the printed page nowadays..
Steve KO0U/4


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • CQ WW Scoring (resolved), ames@force.DECNET.LOCKHEED.COM <=