N6AA vs K5ZD

ERIC.L.SCACE at adn.sprint.com ERIC.L.SCACE at adn.sprint.com
Fri Aug 12 15:59:03 EDT 1994

   People who are concerned that other operators are logging calls "from the
packet spot" instead of listening to what was sent on the air can contribute
to a solution.

   Instead of posting the entire callsign in a packet spot, just post the
prefix.  People hunting multipliers off packet will get the same thrill seeing
"21025.0  FR5    <2130z  K3NA>" posted as they would if the full call was
posted.  But then they will be have to copy the callsign off HF.

-- Eric K3NA

>From barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner)  Mon Aug 15 01:06:49 1994
From: barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 94 00:06:49 GMT
Subject: WAE CW score
Message-ID: <32L3qc1w165w at w2up.wells.com>

300 QSO/299 QTC/68 countries = 109,018
About 5 hours operation

Needless to say, condx sucked. Besides that big thunderstorms on and off 
all weekend created terrible QRN.


Barry N. Kutner, W2UP       Usenet/Internet: barry at w2up.wells.com
Newtown, PA                 Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
                            Packet Cluster: W2UP >K2TW (FRC)

>From barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner)  Mon Aug 15 01:52:13 1994
From: barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 94 00:52:13 GMT
Subject: WAE logs via Internet?
Message-ID: <q6N3qc1w165w at w2up.wells.com>

I know DARC will accept logs via disk. Can they be e-mailed as well?


Barry N. Kutner, W2UP       Usenet/Internet: barry at w2up.wells.com
Newtown, PA                 Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
                            Packet Cluster: W2UP >K2TW (FRC)

>From Eugene Walsh <0004504465 at mcimail.com>  Mon Aug 15 03:06:00 1994
From: Eugene Walsh <0004504465 at mcimail.com> (Eugene Walsh)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 94 21:06 EST
Subject: packet/dvp multi-multi
Message-ID: <90940815020609/0004504465PK2EM at mcimail.com>

Just a comment as memories are triggered off by
K3WW and K3EST.  We were moved to eavesdrop on
YCCC and FRC spotting nets as New York a
was the "Sahara Desert" of contesting in the
early days.  We put large 2 meter arrays (They
were much more successful with FRC than YCCC).
We endeavored to contribute what we could being
far away and the spotting position was an "Entry
level" in to the group.  KC2X and NT2X both started
with us in that seat and moved in to "Pilot seats
after one season of milking, so to speak. So did
KD2EU who eventually split to Maine.

Packet did not change much mult wise for us but we
were more interactive.  The Northeast Packet Cluster
did not exist when N2AA/K2GL went QRT after the 86
CQWW test, But at N2RM the only difference I notice is
that there are alot more contributors than there were
with the voice simplex spotting in the 70s and 80s.
The result is about the same, everyone gets nearly

I think that packet is not appropriate for single ops,
except in a seperate category, and I even think that
multi-multi would be better off competing with each
other on a self-contained basis.  However, one must
either climb on to the steam roller, get out of the
way, or get crushed and hope that your nose will be
cloned!  Packet has resulted in much better contest
activity, especially from DX hunters.  It allows the 
casual and "Non-mega-equipped" station to work lots
of DX and in my view, benn an unqualified PLUS for
contesting in general.  This is my opinion as a 
member of the CQWW Contest Committee with a view
towards the well being of the contest.  For the 
serious single op, it has only been a nuisance,
and provided a suspicion that theuy who beat
you is clandestinely QSX to the spotting net.

Regarding the DVP, K2GM rigged up a "Kryptonite
proof box" in the mid 60s which we used for 
tape loops.  In 1970 I found a little Ampex
cassette machine which was invulnerable to 
RF and brought it to W2PV.  Jim searched 
around and bought a bunch of them.  Later,
lots of consumer machines fit the bill.
Finally, I must remark that at N2AA from
the mid 70s on we also used the magnificent
voice of W3ZZ for our tape loops.  He was
calling CQ from all over the place.  We also
used Bill Leonard's voice, for obvious reasons.

For the young, Bill was a famous announcer, and
Walter Cronkite's boss (He is less obvious these
days, but still W2SKE).  He wrote a superb
article for SPORTS ILLUSTRATED June 30, 1958.
Its wortyh lookinf
Its worth looking up.


>From Richard Hallman <0006135537 at mcimail.com>  Mon Aug 15 03:18:00 1994
From: Richard Hallman <0006135537 at mcimail.com> (Richard Hallman)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 94 21:18 EST
Subject: More Trivia...
Message-ID: <42940815021824/0006135537NA4EM at mcimail.com>

Who was the ONLY West Coast station to WIN Single-op + Packet in
ARRL DX SSB and not even get a special mention for it????

   If it were not for Packet out here in the West....It would be a 
real SAD weekend for all of us in a DX contest out here!   Wake us
when its over.....

  Sure the Single-ops will kill me for my comments here....But....After
almost 10 years in Nevada, Packet sure does add another level of excitement
to the dull West Coast DX contests from a small station.

         See Ya!  Rich  KI3V + Packet     KI3V at mcimail.com

>From Sig <0006481603 at mcimail.com>  Mon Aug 15 03:34:00 1994
From: Sig <0006481603 at mcimail.com> (Sig)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 94 21:34 EST
Subject: Single-op vs Single-op-assisted
Message-ID: <55940815023455/0006481603PK4EM at mcimail.com>

I am writing this in response to Jim White's recent blurb regarding SO vs SOA
categories of operation.  It has always been my belief that a competent op that
has the surreptitious benefit of packet spots can ALWAYS beat an equally compet-
ent op that follows the rules, not only to the letter, but to the intent as
well.  In the days of 2M FM spots, the first use of single-multi operation was
born.  That is, one ear for the HF radio and the second on the 2M radio.  Some
guys I know of entered the Multi-op (then there was no M/S category in the ARRL
DX contest) because they believed that it was proper to be honest in your score
submission.  Others didn't say that they listened to 2M and no one was able to
prove that they were.  It is interesting to note that the former guys usually
were not in contention for a top spot in the contest.  The latter group includ-
ed some of the better scores posted in the US.  I can not believe that the
effort put in by these "benders of the rules" benefited as much as those that
enter as single-op's but use packet spots without connecting to a node.  I have
been operating in one sort of multi-op station or another for longer than I care
to admit and I can tell you that it was really tough to pick out the spots that
were there and gone in a few seconds.  Especially if you used ear phone for the
HF radio and a speaker for the 2M radio.

With the technology now available to all of us in the form of shareware or in-
expensive software, we can easily listen or "watch" packet spots being called
out with the same facility as those using CT or any of the other contest pro-
grams that accepts a packet interface, while we remain unconnected and UN-

The recent flurry (Storm) of messages regarding Soup or Gas or what ever you 
care to call excessive power makes me feel even stronger that unless there is
a way of enforcing a rule, it is a BAD rule to apply to such a technology driven
sport as ours.  At least in the case of high power there are some signs of the
infraction that we can detect (I don't include simply being loud).  In the case
of single-op's using packet, you will never be able to prove that the winner
wasn't listening to or watching a third receiver in his/her single-multi setup.
It may give you satisfaction that there is a separation between SO and SOA, but
we are all fragile beings and some will stray across the boundary in an effort
to win.  I believe we should strive to make the rules be driven by the "observ-
ables" and not by an assumption that all entrants are virtuous and follow the
rules.  Better that there were no rules - then the results would be all that we
would care about.

Incidentally, I did not participate in the assasinations of certain characters
here on the reflector in the SOUP bonanza because I can't prove a thing about
anyone or his/her station without evidence that is scientifically sound.  I
thought several of our contest fraternity went way beyond the limits of reason-
able discussion on the topic.  Kind of reminds me that freedom of speech does
not grant us a license to ravage.  Think O.J. feels that way?

73 and CU in the packet pile-ups soon
Sig, N3RS
6481603 at MCIMail.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list