Randy Thompson wrote:
>
> CQ WORLD WIDE DX CONTEST -- 1996
Randy, why put all this on the contest reflector? It really messed up
my ISP email server and gave me lots of frustration just to download it.
IT IS TOO LONG!! It caused many errors and was too lengthy. I don't
need to see your breakdown report. Let those who want it request it.
Also, your test was TOO LONG. I just deleted it.
Bill, N3RR
>From 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) Wed Dec 4 04:55:31 1996
From: 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) (Hans Brakob)
Subject: Three way "tie" (almost)
Message-ID: <961204045530_71111.260_EHM54-1@CompuServe.COM>
Both Ron (N0AT) and John (N0IJ) have shared their rate sheets
from the SS phone weekend with me. Since our final tally of
QSO's was so close (1361, 1366, 1361), I thought it would be
interesting to line them up side-by-side, hour-by-hour. Ron
and I live just a couple of miles apart near Minneapolis, and
John lives about 150 miles north of us in the Duluth area. John
and I were running high power, and Ron was running low power.
K0HB N0AT N0IJ CUMULATIVE
Hr QSOs Band QSOs Band QSOs Band K0HB/N0AT/N0IJ
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --------------
21 82 20 87 15/20 114 20 82/ 87/ 114
22 64 20 72 15/20 68 20 146/ 159/ 182
23 52 20 103 40 48 20/40/80 198/ 262/ 230
0 69 20 68 20/40 80 20 267/ 330/ 310
1 18* 40/80 63 20/40 31 20/40/80 285/ 393/ 341
2 53 80 39 40/80 55 80 338/ 432/ 396
3 62 80 41 40/80/160 25 40/80/160 400/ 473/ 421
4 32 40/80 40 40/80/160 43 80 432/ 513/ 464
5 31 40/80 28 40/80/160 27 80/160 463/ 541/ 491
6 32 40/80 40 40/80 54 80 495/ 581/ 545
7 27* 40/80 38 40/80 36 80 522/ 619/ 581
8 * 12* 40/80 57 80 522/ 631/ 638
9 * * 14* 80 522/ 631/ 652
10 * * *
11 * * *
12 * 34* 40 11* 40/80 522/ 665/ 663
13 70 40 69 20/40 38 20/40/80 592/ 734/ 701
14 66 20/40 47 20/40 44 20/40 658/ 781/ 745
15 73 20 78 20 57 20 731/ 859/ 802
16 74 20 41 20/40 74 20 805/ 900/ 876
17 73 15/20 60 15/20/40 77 20 878/ 960/ 953
18 71 20 85 40 73 20 949/1045/1026
19 41* 15/20 60 15/20 63 20 990/1105/1089
20 8* 20 27* 20/40 65 20 998/1132/1154
21 94 40 54* 15/20/40 62 20 1092/1186/1216
22 110 40 36 15/20/40 51 15/20 1202/1222/1257
23 71 40 30 20/40 41 20/40 1273/1252/1308
0 57 40 39 20 41 20/40/80 1330/1291/1349
1 31 40/80 27 40/80 12* 40 1361/1318/1361
2 * 48 40/80 * 1361/1366/1361
* = Time off taken in this hour.
Band Summaries
K0HB N0AT N0IJ
160 0 16 16
80 234 95 332
40 457 712 167
20 651 468 835
15 19 75 11
---- ---- ----
Total 1361 1366 1361
I thought it interesting how different our band totals were
in reaching such a close finish.
73, de Hans, K0HB
>From 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) Wed Dec 4 05:38:25 1996
From: 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) (Hans Brakob)
Subject: Computer Usage
Message-ID: <961204053825_71111.260_EHM74-1@CompuServe.COM>
The message from Tom, NM1Q, requesting info on computer
usage by contesters tickled a memory cell (or two) regarding
an article in NCJ a few years ago. Such things have a nasty
habit of rambling around between my eyeball and eyelids when
I'm trying to sleep, so I had to track the quote down.
In the Jan/Feb 1989 issue, WB0IKN and NI0E wrote:
"If you are trying to win the contest or be in the top ten,
on-line logging is probably not for you."
and,
"The real benefit of on-line logging is for the stations
who are not particularly interested in winning."
and,
"On the whole, we do not feel that serious operators will
gain much benefit from on-line Sweepstakes logging...."
Migawd, that was written only 7 years ago!
"CT" was mentioned, but the "hot" logging programs reviewed in
that issue were "Contest 300" and "SCORE". Where are they
today?
73, de Hans, K0HB
|