CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Why SS is like it is

To: <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Why SS is like it is
From: "David Thompson" <thompson@mindspring.com>
Reply-to: David Thompson <thompson@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:05:49 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>



You forgot the 'fun' part Bill. The each contest then was 2 full weekends
long. SSCW 96 hours long...WOW...(the good old days)

Partially right.  Before the mid 60's, the ARRL SS was two weekends with CW
and Phone running at the same time.  You had to choose!

The SS actually ran for 73 hours not 96.  You could operate a maximum of 40
hours.  You had to pick the right 40 hours.  One year I got way ahead only
to find that my competition finished with a couple of good hours and passed
me by 13 QSOs.

Beside the long exchange, the ARRL SS was originally designed for operators
running 150 watts or less INPUT (not output).  There was a multiplier for
running the low power which was 1.25 on CW and 1.5 on Phone (mostly AM
before 1962).

Most stations used modest equipment in those days.  Having a 70 foot tower
and a big tri-bander plus 2 el 40 would make us big guns.
Most used a small tri-bander and wires.

Even then (this made the ARRL cringe) the winners needed access to the
populated NE and Mid west for extened hours.  W1 or W4
was a poor location even if well equipped compared to W5 or W6.

73 Dave K4JRB   Ex K5MDX 1957-1973


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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