CQ WW CW DX CONTEST--1995
CALL: KJ6HO
MODE: CW
CATEGORY: S/O 15M LOW PWR
BAND QSOs POINTS ZONES COUNTRIES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 212 556 27 65 =51,152 POINTS
FT1000D,DVS-2,CT9,6 ELE @103 FT
HIGHLITES:Everything,as this was my 1st full time effort in a CW contest...my
wife liked it as i didnt make any noise!!
LOWLITES: RFI complaint from neighbor even with low power...he has over 200
feet of speaker wire going to at least 6 speakers!!
15m was dead compared to the ssb test 3 weeks ago..lots of weak signals to
pull out..was looking forward to a couple of big JA runs,but was not the
case..
almost no EU,and not even a "rare" zone 12...
Overall, i had a good time and cant wait for some sun spots..cu in the next
one..73 de LARRY,KJ6HO
>From tom@iquest.com (Tom Thompson) Tue Nov 28 07:17:26 1995
From: tom@iquest.com (Tom Thompson) (Tom Thompson)
Subject: Need op for 160m in southeast?
Message-ID: <199511280716.BAA09051@vespucci.iquest.com>
Can anyone use another operator for the upcoming 160m contest? I'm near
Huntsville, AL and can go any direction within a few hours driving. I can
also do a single-op if a kind soul opens up their shack for me.
Tom, N4YOS
tom@iquest.com (or 205-232-1649)
>From Stan Stockton <stans@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us> Mon Nov 27 15:09:31 1995
From: Stan Stockton <stans@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us> (Stan Stockton)
Subject: K5GO CQWW
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.951128015932.1807E-100000@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us>
Took advantage of my son, Kevin (KB5WWA), having basketball practice
Friday night and asked him if he would let the chief operator and tower
climber work one for old time's sake. It was a great fun-especially
spending a lot of time on 160 Saturday night and finding that I could work
most of what I could hear with ease.
This was single operator, all band, high (SB220) power, no assistance, no
strategy, no special diet, etc.
BAND QSOS ZONES COUNTRIES ANTENNAS ON 80 FT TOWER
160 62 16 39 Shunt-fed tower with 4 radials
80 87 19 51 1/2 wave "Inverted V" at 75 ft.
40 439 35 99 Cushcraft 402-CD at 90 ft.
20 661 32 98 3L, 24 ft. boom at 85 ft.
15 170 26 72 4L, 26 ft. boom (side-mounted) at 45 ft.
10 40 11 15 5L, 30 ft. boom at 80 feet
1,459 139 374 = 2,022,246 pts
>From Decha Phromwong <RRT1NET/RRT1POST/Decha%Read-Rite2@mcimail.com> Tue Nov
>28 07:48:00 1995
From: Decha Phromwong <RRT1NET/RRT1POST/Decha%Read-Rite2@mcimail.com> (Decha
Phromwong)
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <90951128074809/0005186288NA2EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
QUIT
>From Stehlik Claus <STEHLIK%ms@graz.pseg.siemens.co.at> Tue Nov 28 17:28:00
>1995
From: Stehlik Claus <STEHLIK%ms@graz.pseg.siemens.co.at> (Stehlik Claus)
Subject: Paperlogs and CQWW
Message-ID: <30BB46CA@mail-pc.ms%graz.pseg.siemens.co.at>
Regarding the CQ-WW Contest I don't understand why I have to send all this
paper logs when a disk will do it too and - I MUST send a disk if I have a
score above average. I think its a waste of paper (much) and money (p&p,
even more from foreign countries with a lot of QSO's (>4200) hi). For all
other big events (WAE, WPX, ...) it is enough to send the disk and the
signed summery sheet or, even better, you can supply only by e-mail (my
personal favorite).
Any reason for that, and don't tell me anything about integrity (Bob, are
you reading) ?
Best greetings from Austria
CU in the next contest - Claus OE6CLD / OE6Z
-.. -..- .. ... --- . -.... -.-. .-.. -..
Claus Stehlik e-mail: stehlik@ms%graz.pseg.siemens.co.at
>From CLC SOUK1 Lyn Chapple" <gbbvjgvj@ibmmail.com Tue Nov 28
>09:08:01 1995
From: CLC SOUK1 Lyn Chapple" <gbbvjgvj@ibmmail.com (CLC SOUK1
Lyn Chapple)
Subject: JA QSls
K3ZO said
>Thus a measurement of QSLing percentage which
>excludes only QSO's from the past 12 months might reflect a bias
against
>the JA QSL'ers. Though I have kept no statistics, it is my
impression
>that the JA's are among the world's best QSL'ers.
I have gone back through the QSL return rates from my previous posting
and focused on QSLs from Japan. I have looked at the return rate as a
function of the year I sent the cards to the buro. Unfortunately the
distribution over the years is proabably too irregular to be
statisitcally significant but it is interesting that the overall poor
return rate of 37% is actually better that that for the years when the
majority of cards were sent. As these were 1987 (35%), 1990 (23.1%)
and
1992 (34%) this tends to disprove the sunspot or slow response
theories.
I regret to say that I am left with the conclusion that JA's are not
good QSLers at least as far as the buro is concerned for QSOs which
would predominantly have been made in contests.
Year card sent No of cards sent No of Cards received %
1980 6 4 66.7
1981 0 0 N/A
1982 1 1 100
1983 1 0 0
1984 0 0 N/A
1985 2 0 0
1986 20 7 35
1987 1 1 100
1988 2 2 100
1989 26 6 23.1
1990 97 33 34.0
1991 6 4 66.7
1992 0 0 N/A
1993 1 1 100
1994 2 2 100
TOTAL 165 61 37
I could do this analysis for US cards if anybody is interested.
73, Lyn G4KBX
>From Thomas Carlsson <74364.2660@compuserve.com> Tue Nov 28 10:48:05 1995
From: Thomas Carlsson <74364.2660@compuserve.com> (Thomas Carlsson)
Subject: CQWW-CW HZ1AB, 7Z1OO
Message-ID: <951128104805_74364.2660_HHG24-1@CompuServe.COM>
HZ1AB, Operator SM0CXU, SO SB HP
QSO PTS ZONE CTY TOT
1887 5111 36 130 848,426
7Z5OO, Operator K3UOC, SO AB HP
3174 8582 118 337 3,904,810
Tnx to all for an enjoyable contest, I almost wrote
weekend but here we have to take days off as our
weekend falls on Thursday and Friday.
Had to be Single band as we not have antennas for all
bands at present.
73 Thomas SM0CXU/AB5CQ
|