10 Meter Contest Score

Michael Barts mbarts at vt.edu
Mon Dec 13 19:33:05 EST 1993

Here's my report for this weekend's contest

Single Op, Low power, Phone only

  Q    M
 117   36   =  8,424 pts

Operating time   4:30

Equipment: IC-735, vertical

Very strange condx, indeed. Was at the office all day Sat so only squeezed
in some time Sat nite and Sunday. Good openings to New England both Sat
and Sun evenings. Good tropo opening to FL Sunday nite about 0430Z, too bad
there weren't more guys still up. Worked some good AF DX Sunday morning
but heard nothing out of EU. SA was also rare (when did that happen last?).
No openings into TX or midwest. Ed, K1TR, is right, this was more like six
meters in a VHF contest. Tnx to all of you who pulled my puny signal out of
the noise and nice to work many of you from the reflector.

73, KB4NT, Mike Barts

>From Ward Silver <hwardsil at seattleu.edu>  Tue Dec 14 02:27:11 1993
From: Ward Silver <hwardsil at seattleu.edu> (Ward Silver)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 18:27:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: contest genetics
Message-ID: <Pine.3.03.9312131810.A18674-a100000 at sumax.seattleu.edu>

Neither...it's EXCESSIVE!

On Mon, 13 Dec 1993 wmhein at aol.com wrote:

> I recently purchased a collection of CQ magazines dating back to 1949. 
> Whilst thumbing through the July, 1967 issue (Don Miller on the cover), I ran
> across a photo of WA4HOM, Brenda Garlough, winner of the 1967 YL-OM Contest
> in both the phone and CW divisions.  The write-up states that "Besides
> hamming, Brenda enjoys their 3-year old son, Trey...."
> Is there a contesting gene?  If so, is it dominant or recessive?
> Bill AA6TT

>From P.VASILION" <V111QHEG at ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu  Tue Dec 14 02:43:07 1993
From: P.VASILION" <V111QHEG at ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 21:43:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: VP9MZ late CQWW CW Score
Message-ID: <01H6G2D10D5E8ZGSPE at ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu>

Sorry this is late, but we ran into some problems with CT. We enjoyed
the contest from "the other side" and appreciate all of you who made 
a QSO. Card proofs are at the printer, so be patient if you need one.

73 es TNX
de Peter KB2NMV/VP9

                   CQ WORLD WIDE DX CONTEST  1993

      Call: VP9MZ                    Country:  Bermuda
      Mode: CW                       Category: Multi Single


      160       57      110     1.93      3       4
       80      489     1032     2.11     12      35
       40     1148     2604     2.27     21      65
       20      794     1792     2.26     16      50
       15      796     1880     2.36     14      49
       10       77      165     2.14     11      18

     Totals   3361     7583     2.26     77     221  =>  2,259,734

All reports sent were 59(9), unless otherwise noted.

Operator List: VP9MZ, WB2YQH/VP9, KB2NMV/VP9, VE3YBH/VP9, WA2AOG/VP9

Equipment Description: ICOM 735, TA-33 for 10 thru 20, dipoles for 40
                       and 80, and a long wire for 160. No antenna over
                       20 feet off the ground and 100 watts out.


>From P.VASILION" <V111QHEG at ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu  Tue Dec 14 02:56:46 1993
From: P.VASILION" <V111QHEG at ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 21:56:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Problem with CT (fixed)
Message-ID: <01H6G2EFWXDK8ZGSPE at ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu>

Hi folks.

Many will remember me asking some ideas on a score discrepancy problem
with CT a month back. Many suggested it was a bad or outdated .CTY
file that was causing the problem. Well, it wasn't. I learned a valuable
lesson, and you may one day encounter the same problem.

The problem was that CT itself was corrupted. When you entered a DX
callsign, it could not recognize the call's proper continent, and, as a
result, defaulted so that all QSO's were three points (xcept dupes and 
your own call). It in essence created a unique continent. All other
functions worked properly and we ran the contest none the wiser until
we brought the logs back and put them on a current version. 

Those of you who use the "latest and greatist" version for every contest
will not run into this problem. but those who have used the same version
for years and years may. Especially if your copy of CT and your computer
is used very frequently.

What is the probability that your copy of CT will be corrupted by an 
errant disk write or cylinder defect and still work at 98% capacity?
Very low. But you never know.

Peter KB2NMV


>From Randy A Thompson <K5ZD at world.std.com>  Tue Dec 14 03:05:59 1993
From: Randy A Thompson <K5ZD at world.std.com> (Randy A Thompson)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 22:05:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CQWW MS
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9312132259.A16862-0100000 at world.std.com>

> Uh, could someone post an example of how a multi-single can have
> four transmitters active at the same time and still be within the 
> definition of a multi-single?   I'm at a loss how that can be done
> legally (despite the log).
OK.  I don't make the rules - just try to interpret them and maximize the 
score.  Here's how it can happen.

Station "1" - Calling CQ trying to run stations.

Station "2" - Trying to establish a run frequency on another band.

Station "3" - Calling a multiplier (this is the current mult station).

Station "4" - Calling a multiplier (if it gets it, then it becomes the 
new mult station).

The only 'questionable' part of this is the two "run" stations.  However, 
as I remind you, there is no rule preventing multiple signals at one 

I would love to see the rules tightened to prevent this type of operation.

Randy, K5ZD

>From John W. Brosnahan" <broz at csn.org  Tue Dec 14 03:43:13 1993
From: John W. Brosnahan" <broz at csn.org (John W. Brosnahan)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 20:43:13 -0700
Subject: chain letter
Message-ID: <199312140343.AA13406 at teal.csn.org>

     I haven't put out any messages on the reflector for quite some time, so
decided it was time to do so.  Just wanted to set the record straight on one
point (contesters are so competitive).  Bill, AA6TT, claimed a few weeks ago 
to have the first computer optimized 4-square on 160, which he put up this 
fall.  Actually, I installed a 4-square on 160 based on computer optimization 
over two years ago.  K0RF and I did a M/S in the CQWW 160 in 1992 with it 
and we worked all continents, including 75 JAs.  
     Unfortunately lightning hit it during the summer of 1992, while I   
was looking right at it wishing I had installed the grounding shorts across 
the insulators.   A bolt came in at a 45 degree angle and hit the top 
of the grounded lower section.  It blew up the phasing box and enough energy 
came up the 1100 feet of control cable to take out my IC-781 through a common
power strip that the rig and the phase box switch shared.  I have not yet 
gotten around to fixing the antenna.  The design, like Bill's, has greater 
than the normal 1/4 wave spacing, but I optimized F-B for high angle signals
from the rear and came to a somewhat different spacing. The array consists of 
four 150 ft Rohn 25 towers with elevated radials at the 25 ft level and 
spacing of 145 ft.  I am now working on an improved phasing system and hope   
to have it back on the air in 1994.
    Also, I ran across the following item as a "Mountain Woman's Chain Letter" 
but thought it might be appropriate for the XYLs of some of the contesters
with just a little rewording.  Hope you find it as funny (or as worrisome)
as I did.
This chain letter was started by a woman who, like yourself is slowly losing
her grip from cabin fever and boredom, while her contester husband sits in
the shack operating in another contest.  She hopes that it will bring relief
to other tired, discontented wives.  Unlike other chain letters, this one is
legal and does not cost anything.
Just send a copy to five of your equally bored female friends.  Then, bundle
up your husband and send him to the woman whose name appears at the top of
the list and add your name to the bottom of the list.
When your name comes to the top, you will receive 15,225 men.  Some of them
are bound to be better than the one you have sent away, and one or two are
apt to be the answer to your prayers.
Have faith and don't break the chain, as one woman who broke it ended up with
her own husband back!
At the time of this writing, a friend of mine has received 438 men.  They 
buried her yesterday, but it took three undertakers 36 hours to get the
smile off her face.
                                         --author unknown
73 and Happy Holidays    John   W0UN      broz at csn.org

>From bhorn at netcom.com (Bruce Horn)  Tue Dec 14 04:34:00 1993
From: bhorn at netcom.com (Bruce Horn) (Bruce Horn)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 20:34:00 -0800
Subject: 10-Meter Contest
Message-ID: <199312140434.UAA00869 at mail.netcom.com>

Single op, lower power, SSB only from S.Calif by John, K6SVL

1,274 Qs  43 S   27 C  = 178,220

>From dzatopek at homer.win.net (David Zatopek)  Tue Dec 14 04:41:23 1993
From: dzatopek at homer.win.net (David Zatopek) (David Zatopek)
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 04:41:23
Subject: cq ww m/s
Message-ID: <216 at homer.win.net>

K5GN writes:

> The interpretation of the rule for multi-single in CQ WW under which I have
> operated is to allow multiple signals at one time with the ten minute rule
> applied as a 10-minute window to the time of the contacts made.  This
> follows from the verification problem, as Jim, K1ZX, noted.

But the rules do not say "multiple signals"...they say "Only one
transmitter and one band permitted during any 10-minute period.
Exception: One-and only one- other band may be used during any
10-minute period if -any only if- the station worked is a new
multipler..." (CQ, September 1993, page 88, III, 3, a).

I read this to mean one signal, plus only one additional signal to
work only one band-multipler in any ten minute period.

I, like N5HD, cannot see how this could be construed as allowing the
operation of four active transmitters.  Applying the rule for
transmitter number one, I see a run station, which can change bands
every 10 minutes.  For transmitter number two, I see a multipler
station, which can work "one and only one- other band" during any
10-minute period as long as the <station> it works is a new
multipler.  For transmitters number three and four, well I see
their ops kinda bored as they wait for a 10-minute window to come
around where they can work their one new multipler ...which for them
would amount to maybe one QSO every 30 minutes.(3 multi stations at
10 minutes each). 

Now if you interprete <station> to mean <station(s)> its a different
story, but you are still limited to a maximum of two bands (run +
multiplier) in any 10-minute window.  This does not disallow multiple
band/rigs as AD1C points out:

>...You're running on 15, have 3 other stations
>tuning the other 3 bands.  When one station hears a new mult, he calls and
>works it, then owns the next 10 minutes (or however you define it).  Other
>"mult" stations can tune around and line up new multpliers so that when the
>10 minutes are up, the ball goes up in the air again and one of the other
>mult stations can catch and keep it for 10 minutes.

All you "own" though is that <one> station that is your new multipler...
unless you are bouncing the run station as well...

I do agree that the rules should not be changed lightly.  But if they 
are open to varying interpretations, they are not rules then, only

This of course applies only to CQWW, the ARRL contests are clearer
in what is considered a multi-single by defination of
number of transmitted signals (one). 

David Zatopek, KT5V             dzatopek at homer.win.net

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list