Send CQ-Contest mailing list submissions to
cq-contest@contesting.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cq-contest-request@contesting.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
cq-contest-owner@contesting.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of CQ-Contest digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Stimulating Participation was: Limited Antenna Height
Category (Kenneth E. Harker)
2. Re: Limited Antenna Height Category (PaulKB8N@aol.com)
3. Re: Stimulating Participation was: Limited Antenna Height
Category (Richard DiDonna NN3W)
4. Re: Stimulating Participation was: Limited Antenna Height
Category (Kenneth E. Harker)
5. Re: Limited Antenna Height Category (Russell Hill)
6. What SO2R has done to me... (Barry )
7. Re: TIC Ring Potentiometer Failure? (K4RO Kirk Pickering)
8. Re: Stimulating Participation was: Limited Antenna Height
Category (Jim Smith)
9. Re: Stimulating Participation was: Limited Antenna Height
Category (Pete Smith)
10. Re: Stimulating Participation was: Limited Antenna Height
Category (Kenneth E. Harker)
11. Re: Stimulating Participation was: Limited Antenna Height
Category (Ron Notarius)
12. Re: Anonymous/pseudonymous posts (Joe Contester)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:30:00 -0800
From: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited
Antenna Height Category
To: CQ Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <20041130193000.GF10422@kenharker.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:01:16PM -0500, Pete Smith wrote:
Doesn't mean it isn't still a good idea,
particularly
in the face of flat or declining participation in contests, which is why
I
have brought it up again.
Can you back up that assertion that contest activity is "flat or
declining"
with data? On HF, it is exactly the opposite of my personal observation.
--
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker@kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:47:16 EST
From: PaulKB8N@aol.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Limited Antenna Height Category
To: rdetweil@hotmail.com, rustyhill@earthlink.net,
cq-contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <1d0.2d22f6f8.2ede2844@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Rusty,
We all choose our lot in life. I chose a covenant restricted
neighborhood
because we were offered a house here at a much reduced price because the
contractor so thoroughly screwed up our first house, which we were
building in an
unrestricted neighborhood.
I don't want to drag politics into this, but there is sometimes a mindset
that everything must be somehow equalized in order to make everyone feel
good
about themselves. I believe that there is very little equality in
anything,
but therein lies the opportunity for skill, determination and innovation.
I am operating a two radio setup in my restricted neighborhood with wires
at
30' height and so thin that most neighbors don't even know they're there,
but I consider my station to be extremely competitive in the low power
category. To say I'm operating from a hole is really true, my
neighborhood is called
Deer Hollow! Nonetheless, I've tweaked everything for maximum
efficiency,
and it is one rockin' little station. I've built enough agility into my
station that I've called and worked a lot of new mults before the other
guy has
his beam turned on him.
I don't need or want to be compared with someone simply because of a
similar
physical infrastruicture. I've chosen my battleground and my weapons,
its
up to me take on the Goliaths and sometimes win. Even when I lose, I
have
more satisfaction in knowing I fought the good fight than any box score
could
give me. In the mean time, I will sharpen my weapons and eagerly await
the
next battle.
Paul, K5AF
Paul Schaffenberger
210-493-6265
210-213-5914(M)
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:51:56 -0500
From: "Richard DiDonna NN3W" <NN3W@prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited
Antenna Height Category
To: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>, "CQ Contest"
<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <AA-84FFEB9B433EDCAE5EA40BC9503334EC-ZZ@www7.prodigy.net>
--- Original Message ---
From: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
To: CQ Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation
was: Limited Antenna Height Category
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:01:16PM -0500, Pete Smith
wrote:
Doesn't mean it isn't still a
good idea, particularly
in the face of flat or declining participation in
contests, which is why I
have brought it up again.
Can you back up that assertion that contest activity
is "flat or declining"
with data? On HF, it is exactly the opposite of my
personal observation.
I think there is a perception that activity on 10
meters has decreased significantly - and not due to
the sunspot cycle. As the number of novices and techs
decreases, I've noticed that the wild 10 meter QSO
counts of the early-mid 90s have not really been
matched today. You could spend most all day on 10 in
the NAQP, CQP, and SS contests - racking up unique Qs
from Novices and techs.
Statistics show that the number of novice and tech-
plus operators has dropped substantially in recent
years. While some of them have graduated to the real
HF allowable categories, many have either dropped out
or remained on VHF bands.
A review of some of the 3830 reports might give some
indication of QSO trends. Of course, its hard to make
exact comparisons since the advent of SO2R has pushed
up overall QSO effectiveness.
Perhaps an analysis of Field Day will give a guess as
to overal QSO counts.
Rich NN3W
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:08:38 -0800
From: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited
Antenna Height Category
To: Richard DiDonna NN3W <NN3W@prodigy.net>
Cc: CQ Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <20041130200837.GK10422@kenharker.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 02:51:56PM -0500, Richard DiDonna NN3W wrote:
--- Original Message ---
From: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
To: CQ Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation
was: Limited Antenna Height Category
>On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:01:16PM -0500, Pete Smith
wrote:
>
>> Doesn't mean it isn't still a
good idea, particularly
>> in the face of flat or declining participation in
contests, which is why I
>> have brought it up again.
>
>Can you back up that assertion that contest activity
is "flat or declining"
>with data? On HF, it is exactly the opposite of my
personal observation.
>
I think there is a perception that activity on 10
meters has decreased significantly - and not due to
the sunspot cycle. As the number of novices and techs
decreases, I've noticed that the wild 10 meter QSO
counts of the early-mid 90s have not really been
matched today. You could spend most all day on 10 in
the NAQP, CQP, and SS contests - racking up unique Qs
from Novices and techs.
The 2002 ARRL 10 Meter Contest had more log submissions
than any previous ARRL contest in history. The number of
submissions in the 10 Meter Contest in 2003 was slightly
down, but so was propagation. Even so, I made at least one
QSO in each of the 36 clock hours I operated last year in
the contest, and the top phone-only single operators made
in excess of 2500 QSOs (in 2001 and 2002 better propagation
enabled nearly 3000 QSOs!)
Yes, 10 meter activity will diminish as the solar cycle
wanes.
Japanese contest activity has diminished. But European
contest activity has exploded in the past five years,
and I believe that U.S. contest activity has been
gently increasing - or at least I have no reason to think
it's been declining, as naysayers will always assert.
--
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker@kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:36:44 -0600
From: "Russell Hill" <rustyhill@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Limited Antenna Height Category
To: <PaulKB8N@aol.com>, <rdetweil@hotmail.com>,
<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <001801c4d71c$4e7f2cb0$28d0f218@RCHill>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Paul-- it sounds as though you are in the San Antonio Area-- my home is
in the Hill Country. Maybe we will meet, after I develop some mobility
following major knee surgery last week.
I know what you are saying, and I agree that those who chose to live in a
deed or covenant restricted neighborhood have chosen for themselves. That
is one of the reasons I have set up a location near Kerrville where I am
not restricted.
That said, I am pushing to encourage other contesters with similar setups
to yours to feel they have a chance at some recognition, in order to get
them to develop the skills and station organization to be active players.
I keep hearing about the average age of contesters, and indeed all hams,
getting higher and higher. That is simply a trend which cannot continue.
(I myself am 63.) I am simply recognizing it is harder and harder to find
a decent house in a decent neighborhood without draconian restrictions,
which make a tower and beams increasingly available to a smaller and
smaller slice of the contesting community. If we are unable to change the
demographics of the contesters, then sometime in the next 20 years I
expect contesting will dry up.
I am planning to play in the 10M test in 2 weeks with a single radio and a
dipole at 10 feet, the only antenna I can have where I am doing
recuperation in Houston. I will have fun if there is any propagation, but
I am grateful that after my recovery I will be able to go to a better
antenna equipped station.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Rusty
----- Original Message -----
From: PaulKB8N@aol.com
To: rdetweil@hotmail.com ; rustyhill@earthlink.net ;
cq-contest@contesting.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Limited Antenna Height Category
Rusty,
We all choose our lot in life. I chose a covenant restricted
neighborhood because we were offered a house here at a much reduced price
because the contractor so thoroughly screwed up our first house, which we
were building in an unrestricted neighborhood.
I don't want to drag politics into this, but there is sometimes a mindset
that everything must be somehow equalized in order to make everyone feel
good about themselves. I believe that there is very little equality in
anything, but therein lies the opportunity for skill, determination and
innovation.
I am operating a two radio setup in my restricted neighborhood with wires
at 30' height and so thin that most neighbors don't even know they're
there, but I consider my station to be extremely competitive in the low
power category. To say I'm operating from a hole is really true, my
neighborhood is called Deer Hollow! Nonetheless, I've tweaked everything
for maximum efficiency, and it is one rockin' little station. I've built
enough agility into my station that I've called and worked a lot of new
mults before the other guy has his beam turned on him.
I don't need or want to be compared with someone simply because of a
similar physical infrastruicture. I've chosen my battleground and my
weapons, its up to me take on the Goliaths and sometimes win. Even when I
lose, I have more satisfaction in knowing I fought the good fight than any
box score could give me. In the mean time, I will sharpen my weapons and
eagerly await the next battle.
Paul, K5AF
Paul Schaffenberger
210-493-6265
210-213-5914(M)
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:47:42 -0000
From: "Barry " <w2up@mindspring.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] What SO2R has done to me...
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <41ACDC6E.17712.94A400@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On the subject of SO2R...
SO2R has made it very difficult for me to consider operating a single
band contest. All that free time just sitting around with nothing to
do during CQs makes them so boring!
73,
Barry W2UP--
Barry Kutner, W2UP Internet: w2up@mindspring.com
Newtown, PA Frankford Radio Club
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:07:48 -0600
From: K4RO Kirk Pickering <k4ro@k4ro.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] TIC Ring Potentiometer Failure?
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Cc: tic-owners@k4ro.net
Message-ID: <20041130210748.GA19177@darkstar.k4ro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I had six pots burn up before I found an alternative.
The burn was happening at one end of the pot, and not
on the wiper. Same place every time. I never could
figure out what was causing the problem. It looked
like a small fuse that opened up. I had MOV's and
large bypass caps on every lead, and it still happened.
I suspect the problem was in the control box, which is
now in the junk box. I finally got sick of replacing the
pots every 3 months. My current fix has lasted 3 years so
far. Now I am using only one side of the pot and measuring
resistance with an ohmmeter. I have a calibration chart,
and it is repeatable to within +/- 3 degrees. Someday I'd
like to build meter shunts and use the old meter box to
indicate direction. Here is a picture of the control box:
http://www.k4ro.net/tcg/image/ticring/new_tic_box.jpg
The TIC-Owners reflector is still up and running, but
there hasn't been any traffic for about a year or so.
I've copied this post to see if any of the remaining
addresses are still valid. :-)
-Kirk K4RO
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 12:35:52PM -0000, Barry wrote:
Jim,
Could be one of two things. In the earlier rotors, there was a
suspected problem of RF burns on the pot coil. This seems to have
been cured putting a few bypass caps on the pot. This was added to
their production models 3-4 years ago, if I recall correctly.
Another possibility, which has also happened to me, is water getting
into the pot and rusting it inside. I don't recall all the details,
but Carl at TIC made some changes to help prevent this as well. One
thing I did in additionis drill a few small holes in the bottom of
the motor box, for drainage. If water gets in, there's no way for it
to get out. Now there is.
The only solution is replacing the pot. There is (was?) an informal
TIC reflector run by K4RO. I don't know if any archives are
available, but this problem was discussed in the past, so you may
want to contact him.
My TIC rings worked fine this weekend. However, my T2X froze up
pointing west (40m Yagi and top TH7) on Saturday afternoon, when I
was ready to move from working some JAs and Pac on 15m, back to 40m
to work EU. So much for this contest :.(
73,
Barry W2UP
On 28 Nov 2004 Jim Idelson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Not far into the contest this weekend, we began to have trouble with
> the TIC 1022E [a 2003 unit]. It exhibits erratic readout and rotation
> behavior. The load is an Optibeam 4-el 40m yagi. I recently tightened
> the drive motor to eliminate slippage of the ring gear. I suspect
> something has happened to the potentiometer that feeds back rotor
> position back to the controller. A search of the towertalk archives
> shows that there have been problems like this in the past [1996/1997].
> I went up the tower to have a look this afternoon, but did not see
> enything suspicious. There were no bad external wiring connections,
> etc. I sprayed the drive shaft and what looks like the position pot
> shaft with contact cleaner from the outside. That did nothing, but I
> suspect I would have to disassemble the motor to get the spray into
> the right places.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim Idelson K1IR
> email k1ir at designet.com
> web http://www.designet.com/k1ir
--
Barry Kutner, W2UP Internet: w2up@mindspring.com
Newtown, PA Frankford Radio Club
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:11:16 -0800
From: Jim Smith <jimsmith@shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited
Antenna Height Category
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <41ACE1F4.6050808@shaw.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
I'm trying a different way to increase contest participation. I invited
a bunch of newbie, no-ticket, folks taking the VECTOR club licence class
to come to my QTH and op for CQWW SSB and SS SSB. They each got 2 hours
of formal training in contest operating with about 50 min of actually
making Qs. (Check out my 3830 stories for details.) Those who came
back for SS got another 2 hours of more advanced training. Of the 16
people, I'd say that about 12 of them were really turned on by the
experience. Tonight they write the basic licence exam. In VE you can't
get on the HF bands without 5 wpm so now they're asking if we're
offering a code class after Xmas. We are. They're also asking if the
club will help them with antennas. How could I say no?
It's too early to tell whether this will actually translate into more
contesters although a previous and much less structured effort has
produced one. If you got VA7IRL for a sweep in SS you can thank me.
The point I'm trying to make is this. If you want to see more
contesters, you might try growing some. The local club's licence class
is a good place to find the seeds.
I was dubious at first about sharing the big contests with others and
started off using state QSO parties for training. The trouble was that
it was sometimes a long time between Qs so I, somewhat grudgingly,
invited the newbies to participate in the big ones. I'm now glad that I
did. It's a lot of fun seeing their excitement when they make the first
Q in their life and it's someone in Eu or Australia. Mind you, I don't
know how I'll feel when I have to start sharing the CW ones.
So, (tongue planted firmly in cheek) how about a couple of new
categories? One for stations with trainees occupying up to 25% of the
time and another for the over 25% crowd? When I start doing SO2R
training will I be wanting another 2 categories? Guess I'd better learn
how to do it myself first.
73 de Jim Smith VE7FO
Pete Smith wrote:
At 10:20 AM 11/30/2004, Russell Hill wrote:
I would like to suggest this thread consider something else--keeping
the casual operator in the contest. I have read many comments about
the necessity to have the casual operators in the contests-- they are
involved in the majority of Qs-- we need them!
Rusty goes on to suggest that a limited height category would help
keep participation going (or growing), but I wonder if that's really
true. I have seen stats suggesting that perhaps as few as one in 8 or
10 stations logged in CQWW even bothers to send in a log. Doesn't
that imply that most people get on to fatten their DXCC totals, for
the inherent thrill of working DX, or even just to have something to
do on a cold fall weekend?
If we really want to stimulate increased log submission in CQWW, I'd
suggest that a good way to do it would be to implement direct linkages
between the CQWW database and LotW, such that when a QSO was confirmed
by receipt of both logs by CQWW, it would be considered confirmed for
DXCC purposes.
This needn't be done in real time, or involve any elaborate
inter-database communication. I'm confident that ways could be found
to do it that would not affect CQWW's hard-held position that logs
submitted to them will not be disclosed to anyone. A harder problem
may be achieving the requisite level of trust between the two
organizations, even though things seem much better now than in the
past, when ARRL would not even mention CQ contests in QST.
If the cultural divide is still too wide, maybe an easier challenge
would be for the ARRL to do this for its own contests. I bet that
participation, as measured by log submissions, would benefit
substantially.
73, Pete
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:24:17 -0500
From: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited
Antenna Height Category
To: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>, CQ Contest
<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20041130160325.02223bd0@mail.adelphia.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
In response to Ken's skepticism, I just took a quick look at some
stats. I used the ARRL numbers because they were readily available
on-line. These may not be 100 percent accurate, because in a couple
of the earlier cases I could not tell whether the totals cited in QST
were
just competitors or included check logs, but they give a general
sense. Later numbers represent the total in the score database, so check
logs have been excluded.
ARRL CW SS: 2000 - 1236
2001 - 1268
2002 - 1319
2003 - 1240
ARRL DX CW: 2000 - 2290
2001 - 2418
2002 - 2384
2003 - 2350
2004 - 2681
ARRL DX PH: 2000 - 2172
2001 - 2303
2002 - 2286
2003 - 2263
2004 - 2267
ARRL 10M 2000 - 2875
2001 - 2522
2002 - 3121
2003 - 2324
I freely acknowledge that falling sunspot numbers tend to be a drag on
participation, particularly in contests like the ARRL 10-meter contest.
We
also don't know whether the average number of operating hours per log is
flat, up or down. Finally, we do not have access to the data, so far as I
know, on the total number of calls actually showing up in logs in these
contests.
If it is true that only a small proportion of the total on-air
participants
send in logs, then we have no information on what's happening to the
numbers of casual participants. Here I enter the realm of the subjective,
because it feels to me, in CW contests in particular, as if the total
number of inhabitants of the bands during contests I've entered has
declined. I guess that's the exact opposite of Ken's perception.
Bottom line -- "declining" may have been a bit strong, but "flat" seems
justified. Should we settle for flat?
73, Pete N4ZR
At 02:30 PM 11/30/2004, Kenneth E. Harker wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:01:16PM -0500, Pete Smith wrote:
> Doesn't mean it isn't still a good idea,
particularly
> in the face of flat or declining participation in contests, which is
> why I
> have brought it up again.
Can you back up that assertion that contest activity is "flat or
declining"
with data? On HF, it is exactly the opposite of my personal observation.
--
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker@kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:32:26 -0800
From: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited
Antenna Height Category
To: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Cc: CQ Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <20041130213226.GN10422@kenharker.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 04:24:17PM -0500, Pete Smith wrote:
If it is true that only a small proportion of the total on-air
participants
send in logs, then we have no information on what's happening to the
numbers of casual participants. Here I enter the realm of the
subjective,
because it feels to me, in CW contests in particular, as if the total
number of inhabitants of the bands during contests I've entered has
declined. I guess that's the exact opposite of Ken's perception.
FWIW, I am almost exclusively a phone contester, so that will affect my
perception vs. a CW-only contester.
--
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker@kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:56:40 -0500
From: "Ron Notarius" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited
Antenna Height Category
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <05df01c4d728$9f2544e0$2f01a8c0@presario>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I don't think it's quite that simple... or for that matter, that
complicated.
Considering the number of contesters currently submitting electronic logs,
or using logging programs to generate their paper logs... considering
further the number of logging programs that can generate either ADIF
and/or
Cabrillo format files, to say nothing of the number of conversion programs
available... what's the big deal about submitting two email submissions --
one to the contest organizer to enter the contest, one to Logbook of the
World -- by those that choose to use the system?
And -- since many have decided, at least for now for any number or reasons
not to participate in LotW, why would we "backdoor" them into the system?
I'm quite sure that there would be many screaming bloody murder about
having
their contest logs matched into LotW without their prior knowledge or
permission (which, of course, will be blamed on the ARRL -- isn't
everything
these days?). Why are we in such a rush these days, anyway? Do the
bragging rights of the award(s) involved mean that much?
As far as the DX contest credits, yes, they considered it -- I asked about
that at Dayton a year or three ago. The response was very detailed about
what could and could not be done and why, but the bottom line was that it
would only take an extra step and a few minutes to process the log with
Trusted QSL for LotW submission, so what was the big deal about it? I
don't
think the "trust" issue here has anything to do with amateur morality,
past
or present, but with making the system itself trustworthy. If you believe
the system can be easily compromised by bogus QSO data (as can so easily
be
done with eQSL -- and I have a "P5SLIM" eQSL to prove it), you have no
trust
in the system. If you do not trust the system, you won't use it or rely
on
it.
The onus here should be on the contester & contest station, not the
League,
the CQWW committee, or any other organization. If you want fast
confirmation for awards purposes of the contest logs, then encourage your
fellow contesters to submit their logs. It's that simple.
And FWIW, once I finally got off my duff, got my LotW credentials in
order,
converted most of my logsm and uploaded them, I got more "confirmed QSOs"
in
the first 15 minutes than I've seen in at least 5 years of eQSL activity.
Not sure what that means, but it sure is interesting trivia!
73, ron wn3vaw
12000+ post-1983 QSO's uploaded, pre-1984 QSO's to go
----- Original Message -----
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:34:44 -0500
From: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited
Antenna Height Category
To: dezrat1242@ispwest.com
Cc: CQ-contest@contesting.com
I acknowledge that ARRL would be "letting down their guard" to some
extent
if they allowed block transfers of matched CQWW QSOs, but at some point
in
any such exercise I think you have to ask how much you are giving away
for
the last 1 percent of security. After all, how likely is it that
somebody
would cook both ends of a QSO in CQWW and then have both logs sent in,
simply to fake out the DXCC system? I suppose you could even carry it a
step further and have some internal rules about not crediting QSOs where
both ends are uniques, or perhaps other checks could be accomplished.
Its worth remembering that ARRL used to credit ARRL DX Contest QSOs for
DXCC, if both logs were sent in and matched. To my knowledge, it was
workload, rather than any particular scandal(s), that brought the end of
that practice. Has the morality of the amateur community really declined
so much that ARRL no longer dares even consider such a thing?
73, Pete N4ZR
10:59 AM 11/30/2004, you wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:46:57 -0500, Pete Smith wrote:
>
> >A harder problem may be achieving the requisite
> >level of trust between the two organizations, even though things seem
much
> >better now than in the past, when ARRL would not even mention CQ
contests
> >in QST.
>
>_________________________________________________________
>
>The ARRL would have to give up their Trusted QSL protocol, wouldn't
>they? How would you get around that?
>
>--
>Bill W6WRT
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:27:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Contester <radiosporting@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Anonymous/pseudonymous posts
To: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>, CQ-Contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <20041130222713.47624.qmail@web80908.mail.scd.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi Pete,
There is no ominous intent here. I'm Ev, W2EV. I'm attempting to
segregate my email accounts by area of interest...nothing more. If anyone
were so inclined, they could easily check the IP address of the emails in
thier "trash" folder and match up an anonymous post with others already
received. It's easy to do.
As long as folks engage in on-topic and non-attacking email threads, I
don't see the harm in not IDing with every "transmission". :)
On a personal note, I've received so many emails with my name misspelled
anyway, I'm not certain it really matters anyway.
Even so...there's no mystery here. It's me. :)
Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com> wrote:
These postings from Joe Contester raise this point; should it not be
standard practice that people posting to cq-contest sign either their
call-signs or their real names?
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
End of CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 23, Issue 91
******************************************
