Wassell, James T., Ph.D. wrote:
>
> I found these easy ways to determine your grid square from the N.E.W.S.
> North East Weak Signal VHF Group Home Page.
snip
>
> Better yet here are maps for North America grid squares (useful unless
> you're too close
> to a border to decide what square you're in).
> http://uhavax.hartford.edu/disk$userdata/faculty/newsvhf/www/gridmaps.html
snip
How about the 6
> digit
> grid square? - That would be a little bit more of a challenge.
>
> Sounds like a fun contest. 73. Terry, K3JT
The Buckmaster maps are pretty amazing. Unfortunately, they are not
accurate enough for a six-digit grid square determination, and may be
faulty even for four digits. I looked at two callsigns whose QTH's I
know well--mine and KA6W. Mine was off a good fraction of a mile. Ted's
was off by several miles. I suspect many rural locations will be off by
a similar amount. I think one might be fortunate at current state of the
art to get his four-digit locator correct from the Buckmaster maps.
OTOH, the hand calculation from WB5VZL, posted a few days ago and
included in the N.E.W.S. page, certainly works, but it behooves one to
know his lat/long coordinates accurately. For example, my QTH is at
37.15N/121.98W--that is in CM97 but only about .57 mi from the meridian
border with CM87. I determined my QTH with a USGS 15 minute
quadrant--not everyone has one handy.
What this means is that entering someone's gridsquare AFTER the proposed
"operating event" is a bit iffy if accuracy is a factor, especially if a
different--or even mistaken--gridsquare was received from that station
by other contesters.
Just a thought.
--
Garry Shapiro, NI6T
Editor, The DXer
newsletter of the Northern California DX Club
>From n2uck@juno.com (Roman S Makuch) Thu Aug 22 04:53:50 1996
From: n2uck@juno.com (Roman S Makuch) (Roman S Makuch)
Subject: CW & HF Licensing
References: <Pine.OSF.3.95.960821093319.18054C-100000@gonzo.wolfenet.com>
Message-ID: <19960821.204450.10943.0.n2uck@juno.com>
To Ward that believes that 10Meters is dead 5 years out of 11.
Since we are at the bottom of the sunspot cycle and 10 meters are dead
maybe I should send my M6G, HG96HQ, DA0HQ, SP2EBG and CT4NH cards back?
All were worked on the Novice portion of the bad this year. The band is
not at its peak, but if you are willing to work at it, contacts will be
made.
73 de Roman, N2UCK
On Wed, 21 Aug 1996 10:25:56 -0700 (PDT) hwardsil@wolfenet.com (Ward
Silver) writes:
>
>Here's an idea - Consider merging the no-code Tech and Novice
>licenses,
>with HF privileges the same as General, but at a greatly reduced power
>level. VHF privileges would be the same as for current no-code Tech.
>
>This would get the new ham "in the tent" so that he or she can see why
>it's worth learning the code to get the extra privileges. As it
>stands,
>the Novices and Technicians are segregated in little-used or
>SWBC-infested
>bands (with the exception of 10m SSB which is dead 5 years out of 11)
>where they don't get exposed to the full ham experience. I know from
>experience that you can do a lot with just a few watts of power and
>even
>limited antennas.
>
>This has the simultaneous effect of getting the entry-level ham
>involved
>in the ham community while making "full membership" contingent on
>making
>the effort to acquire skills. Also, it would tend to minimize the
>no-code/code frequency segregation, yet maintain the value of the
>higher class ticket. I would make the analogy of the "visual flight
>rules" restriction on new pilots as a parallel situation. Also (he
>said,
>tongue-in-cheek) it gets me a lot more Sunday afternoon contacts
>during
>Sweepstakes ;-) ;-) ;-)
>
>To be clear, let's call the new Entry-Level license the "Associate":
>
>Associate Current Tech Exam Current VHF privileges plus
> General HF privileges, 5-20W
>
>Current Tech Grandfathered to Associate
>
>Current Novice Grandfathered to
>Associate
>
>Current Tech-Plus Grandfathered to new General
> due to having passed
>the
> higher theory/rules
>exam
>
>General 7-10wpm requirement Existing General
>privileges
> (13 is too big a (no change to existing
>licensees)
> step as a first
> exam level)
>
>Advanced More theory & rules Existing Advanced
>privileges
> (no change to existing
>licensees)
>
>Extra 15-20wpm plus more All Amateur privileges
> theory and rules
>
>The FCC should like this proposal as it reduces the number of license
>levels to four from the current six. Current licensees see no
>reduction
>in their privileges and no significant cheapening of their
>achievement.
>Manufacturers will like it because more people will have more HF
>privileges. New licensees will like it because they get access to
>more
>activities. Old licensees should tolerate it because it keeps the CW
>requirement and doesn't give away the HF store, yet makes the hobby
>more
>inclusive of the new licensee.
>
>Technicians get the biggest bonus - General Class privileges.
>Existing
>Novices get VHF privileges and existing no-code Techs get the
>limited-power HF privileges. Novices trade the existing 250W limit
>against broader HF frequency privileges. (Get the Novices down below
>7050kHz and they'll be upgrading faster than they ever imagined.)
>
>As it is, the entry-level licensees don't have the opportunity to mix
>in
>the the broader ham community. "Novices - you go over there in the
>weeds
>where we can't see you. No-code techs, you guys stay away from HF
>entirely. Techs - you can operate on HF, but only with the Novices."
>Small wonder that these groups don't upgrade and don't feel a strong
>bond
>with the traditional ham community!
>
>I agree with K1KP entirely that there needs to be a commonality among
>hams. Yet it can't happen without *communication* within the
>*community*.
>It is no coincidence that the words begin with the same six letters.
>
>73, and let's have some discussion!
>
>Ward N0AX
>
>
>From n2uck@juno.com (Roman S Makuch) Thu Aug 22 05:51:58 1996
From: n2uck@juno.com (Roman S Makuch) (Roman S Makuch)
Subject: Shack-on-a-belt'isms
References: <199608211852.LAA11348@desiree.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <19960821.210104.9791.3.n2uck@juno.com>
Well, if he is refering to it as "taking a QRP", some of us might then
say that we are "taking a QRO"
73 de Roman, N2UCK
On Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:52:24 -0700 (PDT) k7fd@teleport.com (John
Nicholson) writes:
>This one takes the cake. A newbie on the local repeater referred to
>his
>potty break as 'taking a QRP'.
>
>All I can say is the end must be near.
>
>John K7FD
>
>
>From n2uck@juno.com (Roman S Makuch) Thu Aug 22 05:49:23 1996
From: n2uck@juno.com (Roman S Makuch) (Roman S Makuch)
Subject: Misrepresentation by AA5BT
References: <1371484563-9153449@banjo.easy.com>
Message-ID: <19960821.210104.9791.2.n2uck@juno.com>
This is a hobby. This is not a license for work purposes. For those
that want to get rid of the CW requirement, all I can say is GROW UP.
Those that would get rid of the CW requirement, would also have a rare
1902 2-cent stamp reprinted, just so they could get one.
73 de Roman, N2UCK
On Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:32:22 -0500 nt5c@easy.com (John Warren) writes:
>Derek AA5BT wrote:
>
> >Since John is known to detest CW, this is additional
> >proof that the questionnaire is biassed (sic)
>
>I wouldn't normally bother the Reflector with this, but since Derek
>chose
>to misrepresent my views publicly, I feel obliged to correct him the
>same
>way.
>
>I absolutely do NOT detest CW, which is a wonderful tradition in
>amateur
>radio. I have many friends who are expert CW operators, and whose
>skills
>and successes with that mode I admire. I strongly support dedicated
>band
>segments for their use. The wonderful thing about this hobby is the
>variety
>it offers. What I do detest, because I find it totally illogical, is
>MANDATORY code testing for those of us who have quite different
>interests,
>and who never intend to use it. There are far more appropriate tests
>for
>the higher grades of license.
>
>A private apology will be sufficient Derek.
>
>John, NT5C.
>
>P.S. Can't we put this futile, endless argument to rest - FOR KEEPS?
> Whatever happened to live-and-let-live?
>
>
>
>From ag9y@macomb.com (Joseph L. Rossmiller) Thu Aug 22 19:40:44 1996
From: ag9y@macomb.com (Joseph L. Rossmiller) (Joseph L. Rossmiller)
Subject: Shack-on-a-belt'isms
References: <BMSMTP8407114154kj5yf@pop3.wt.net>
Message-ID: <321CA9AC.20B0@macomb.com>
Larry Johnson wrote:
>
> > From: k7fd@teleport.com (John Nicholson), on 8/22/96 03:42 AM:
> > This one takes the cake. A newbie on the local repeater referred to his
> > potty break as 'taking a QRP'.
> >
> > All I can say is the end must be near.
> >
> > John K7FD
> >
> >
Hummmmm. QRP ----> Reduce power by taking potty break Quess we now know
what powers this fellow........
>From trey@cisco.com (Trey Garlough) Thu Aug 22 15:45:19 1996
From: trey@cisco.com (Trey Garlough) (Trey Garlough)
Subject: More and more new contest
Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.4.840717919.trey@aclark-sun.cisco.com>
> I'm not to sure about WN4KKN's suggestion that entries should be in some
> machine-readable form only. Not all of us DX have computers, Internet or
> even typewriters. Perhaps entries that aren't subject to the extra
> scrutiny possible should just be flagged as such in the results.
Exactly.
For the contest to be respectable, the logs need to be checked. To
check the logs, you need them in electronic form. Logs that are
received in non-electronic form should be flagged "not checked" and
have their claimed score listed. Then as the results are published,
you can set up your spreadsheet to use or not use this key, depending
on whether you think this is an issue.
Of course, if some of the poisson d'Avril logs accidently get
submitted, then we will be seeing some interesting results!
Another thing I want to emphasize is that I believe timely results
are more important to keeping interest high than is a fancy writeup.
Furthermore, all logs should be placed out on the web so that anyone
can look at any log and learn from it.
--Trey, WN4KKN
>From rdidonna@tacarlson.com (Rich DiDonna) Thu Aug 22 14:57:07 1996
From: rdidonna@tacarlson.com (Rich DiDonna) (Rich DiDonna)
Subject: CW & HF Licensing
Message-ID:
<c=US%a=_%p=TA_Carlson_?_Com%l=NTSERVER-960822135707Z-361@ntserver.tacarlson.com>
With all the talk about ending some of the CW requirements for HF, it
would
become obvious that the portions of the HF bands for voice would become
jammed. Yes? VHF is jammed with people now as it is with the no code
licenses - wait 'till the top of the cycle when 20 meters is virtually
unusable.
How about 4 classes -
Novice: VHF only 50 mHz and up (200 watt limit)
No code required. Skills tailored tests.
- no-code techs would become this class of operator.
Technician: Existing general priveleges but with 200 watt limit.
HF added questions. Extra rules, regulations, etc.
Intermediate
level theory, electrical principles, etc.
- current novices and tech plus licensees would be grandfathered to this
level.
Advanced: Existing advanced priveleges.
Advanced level theory and rules/regs. 10 wpm code test.
- current advanced operators stay advanced.
Extra: All amateur priveleges.
Highest level theory and practical knowledge demonstration.
18 wpm code test.
>----------
>From: Doug Smith[SMTP:desmith@Telalink.Net]
>Sent: Thursday, August 22, 1996 9:39 AM
>To: cq-contest@tgv.com
>Subject: Re: CW & HF Licensing
>
>(various stuff deleted)
>>Several suggestions about simplifying further to three classes...one
>
>>If there were frequency privileges to be restricted, I'd pick 20-meters
>
>>Very useful commentary...
>True!
>
>First, I suggest a move to reserve certain band segments for type A1
>emission only. I propose 1800-1835, 3500-3575, 7000-7060, 10100-10110,
>14000-14060, 18068-18085, 21000-21075, 24890-24910, and 28000-28075 for
>only
>A1 emission, and only at speeds of 75wpm or less. Whether we go ahead
>with
>no-code HF or not, these moves would prevent digital modes (and the
>waste of
>HF packet...) from making CW operation impossible.
>
>Then, how about an "elective" system of examinations?
>
>All applicants would be required to pass a basic exam on regulations
>relevant to all license classes, and another one on regulations
>relevant to
>the specific class they're applying for. Applicants for Advanced would
>also
>have to pass a 5wpm Morse test and basic tests on operating procedures
>and
>theory; applicants for Extra would need 13wpm Morse and an intermediate
>test
>on operating & theory.
>
>Beyond those minimum requirements, all applicants would also have to
>pass
>their choice of some minimum number of *elective* exams from a list.
>Available subjects might include "intermediate HF operating
>techniques",
>"basic data-mode technology", "advanced VHF communication technology",
>etc..
>
>So, a computer whiz might earn a General with no Morse by passing
>electives
>on advanced VHF communications and advanced data modes. Or, a
>"technically
>challenged" operator who's good at the code might earn the same license
>by
>passing 20wpm Morse and intermediate HF operating.
>
>I propose no changes in privileges per license class. (again, except
>for
>prohibiting F1 emission at the bottom of the bands)
>
>No-code HF isn't a "dumbing down" if we toughen the written exam at the
>same
>time. It *CAN* be done; let's work to shape this constructively before
>the
>issue snowballs beyond anyone's control...
>
>73 Doug W9WI
>
>
>========================================================================
>==
>Douglas E. Smith W9WI/4 desmith@Telalink.net
>1385 Old Clarksville Pike (preferred for long files)
>Pleasant View, TN 37146-8098 USA -or-
>(615) 746-5205 72777.3143@compuserve.com
> (preferred for time-critical info)
>========================================================================
>==
>
>
>From aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman) Thu Aug 22 15:00:23 1996
From: aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman) (Bill Coleman)
Subject: Grid Square Unknown
Message-ID: <m0utaHc-00019RC@wa4mei.radio.org>
>Subject: RE: Grid Square Unknown
>Sent: 8/21/96 5:05
>Received: 8/21/96 9:40
>From: Waldemar Krzok, waldemar@zedat.fu-berlin.de
>To: cq-contest@TGV.COM
>CC: kr2j@ix.netcom.com
>
>> How about it ? Maybe get CQ and QST to publish the technique ? Watsay AR
>> ? Billy ? (NCJ and CQ Contest too!)
>
>I have a plenty of routines (BASIC/C/Excel Macro) to determine
>QTH-Locator. I can also write down the algorithm, if someone need it. I have
also routines
>to count the distance (in metres and kilometres, not miles yards and fingers)
The problem isn't determining the grid square from the lat/long
information. The problem for casual ops is knowing their lat/long
information to sufficient accuracy to determine their grid square.
I used to live in EM73. (EM73wt to be exact) I've now moved about 10
miles away. I think I'm in EM83 or 84 now (I have to check). I happen to
own a GPS unit, so finding my lat/long with great accuracy isn't a
problem.
I doubt most casual ops can determine their position on earth within the
2 degree by 1 degree squares, unless they happen to know it already.
The solution is simple. Have an "Unknown" grid square. It would count for
a fixed number of miles (km), or would be a separate grid multiplier.
Bill Coleman, AA4LR Mail: aa4lr@radio.org
Quote: "Not in a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>From rdidonna@tacarlson.com (Rich DiDonna) Thu Aug 22 14:59:24 1996
From: rdidonna@tacarlson.com (Rich DiDonna) (Rich DiDonna)
Subject: Grids, RSTs, etc.
Message-ID:
<c=US%a=_%p=TA_Carlson_?_Com%l=NTSERVER-960822135924Z-362@ntserver.tacarlson.com>
Since some of us still are active in QSL work for contests, isn't the
exchange
still sort of required so that the QSL can be made official?
Rich KI6ZH
>----------
>From: Jim Stahl[SMTP:k8mr@barf80.nshore.org]
>Sent: Thursday, August 22, 1996 9:54 AM
>To: cq-contest@tgv.com
>Subject: Grids, RSTs, etc.
>
>
>IMHO the sooner RSTs disappear as contest exchanges, the better.
>In the meantime the busted QSO penalty could be adjusted to
>reflect just how "readable" the guy was that you screwed up on,
>based on the "R" in the report you passed out to him:
>
>
>Jim K8MR k8mr@barf80.nshore.org
> ----------------------------
>Jim Stahl
>InterNet: k8mr@barf80.nshore.org
>Basic Amateur Radio Frequency, BARF-80 +1 216/237-8208
>"Totally devoted to Amateur Radio" - 24 Hrs a day 8/N/1 14.4k-300 baud
>
>
>From kr4dl@mindspring.com (Steven R. Schmidt) Thu Aug 22 19:31:19 1996
From: kr4dl@mindspring.com (Steven R. Schmidt) (Steven R. Schmidt)
Subject: NAQP Scores - typo?
Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19960822183119.303f1754@atl.mindspring.com>
At 12:02 PM 8/21/96 -0300, you wrote:
>NAQP 96 SSB
>Raw Scores
>N9ITX/7 60,298 511 198
Something's wrong with this picture. A typo, or Michael really has 101,178
points. That's quite a difference. If the Q's and Mults are correct, Mike,
you may want to revise your summary sheet.
73, Steve KR4DL
>From kr4dl@mindspring.com (Steven R. Schmidt) Thu Aug 22 19:40:25 1996
From: kr4dl@mindspring.com (Steven R. Schmidt) (Steven R. Schmidt)
Subject: Misrepresentation by AA5BT
Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19960822184025.303fe3ba@atl.mindspring.com>
>P.S. Can't we put this futile, endless argument to rest - FOR KEEPS?
> Whatever happened to live-and-let-live?
John, it died.
73, Steve KR4DL
>From km9p@contesting.com (Bill Fisher KM9P) Thu Aug 22 16:01:52 1996
From: km9p@contesting.com (Bill Fisher KM9P) (Bill Fisher KM9P)
Subject: Re WN4KKN: More on new contest rules
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.960822105138.5517A-100000@paris.akorn.net>
On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Trey Garlough wrote:
> Another thing I want to emphasize is that I believe timely results
> are more important to keeping interest high than is a fancy writeup.
> Furthermore, all logs should be placed out on the web so that anyone
> can look at any log and learn from it.
>
> --Trey, WN4KKN
I really like these ideas. I very real attempt will be made to get the
results out quickly. I had planned to contact AA5B about running the
results in the NCJ. I can publish them immediately on a WWW page, but I'm
not sure everyone is keen on that idea.
Depending on the number of logs, my time, my available hard drive space on
a web server, etc... I will publish all the logs in ASCII format on the
www. I will promise to publish the top ten logs in this format. I'm not
sure about everyone's log being available.
Regarding the rules... If you have comments please advise now. I received
one NASTY-GRAM stating this was turning to "bill & trees" contest. That
is definately not the intent. This person's complaint was with the no
multiplier rule. We thought it was generally the opinion that most
people would like to see a contest with no multipliers.
Regarding RST. My thought was that we were about 50/50 on opinions
regarding RST's. Tree left that decision up to me. I opted for RST. I
personally dont like RST's... it's basically useless information in
contests. But if everyone follows the rules, it won't be!
73
Bill
|