OO cards
Sean E. Kutzko
tigger at prairienet.org
Sat Dec 10 22:15:28 EST 1994
Hiya-
I just got my very first OO in the mail yesterday! Seems he didn't like
my working a guy on 14.349 during SS.
Guess that makes me a REAL contester now!
Cheers-
Sean Kutzko KF9PL
Urbana, IL
--
"Be regular and orderly in your life so that you may be violent
and original in your work." -Gustave Flaubert
>From David O. Hachadorian" <0006471356 at mcimail.com Fri Dec 9 17:59:00 1994
From: David O. Hachadorian" <0006471356 at mcimail.com (David O. Hachadorian)
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 94 12:59 EST
Subject: What's a valid QSO
Message-ID: <63941209175936/0006471356PK1EM at MCIMAIL.COM>
When a station calls me, and shows up as a dupe in my log, I initially just
send the QSO B4 message. If the person insists that we have not QSO'd, then
I work him again and put him in the log as a zero point dupe, and leave it
that way when the log is submitted. I also make a note on the notepad to
check after the contest to make sure I didn't screw up the callsign on the
previous contact or enter it on the wrong band by mistake.
Dave, K6LL
k6ll at mcimail.com
>From Lee Hiers <0006701840 at mcimail.com> Fri Dec 9 18:08:00 1994
From: Lee Hiers <0006701840 at mcimail.com> (Lee Hiers)
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 94 13:08 EST
Subject: 160 meter DX Window
Message-ID: <80941209180808/0006701840PK4EM at MCIMAIL.COM>
Hello All...
I'm in Maryland on business right now, so I don't have the rules handy, but
as I recall, they say in effect "the segment from 1830 to 1850 should be
reserved for inter-continental QSOs".
First, the word "should" does not equate to the word "must". As soon as
the rules _require_ everyone to make only inter-continental QSOs in this
segment and such a rule is equitably enforced, we will comply. As it stands,
we are not in violation.
We made over 1400 QSOs in the past ARRL 160 contest, with probably over 90%
of them made in the window. Let's say we made around 50 intercontinental
QSOs. Since we were CQing most of the time, that means that something over
1200 NA stations *called us*. If you don't like us CQing in the window, don't
reward us with a QSO! It takes two to tango...any station that calls us is
violating the window as much as, if not more than, we are. And we are working
more than casual ops on these frequencies, we're working most of the serious
guys as well.
We can work DX (and try to - that's one of the reasons we choose the
frequencies we use) from the beginning of the contest until after sunrise
the next morning (we made at least one inter-continental QSO in the first
hour of this past contest).
Often during the grayline's morning trek through Europe we call "CQ DX" or
"CQ EU". Unfortunately, we usually get a stateside station calling us on top
of the DX stations. The most expeditious thing for us to do is to work the
guy quickly and hope the DX hangs around....fortunately, they often do.
What is the problem with the stateside guy that calls in such a situation?
Doesn't hear us call DX? Doesn't know what DX is? Can't copy the code?
Doesn't think DX is calling us because he can't hear? Answer: "yes".
160 is a small band. 20 khz is too large a chunk to remove from the middle
of it, especially when one considers the narrow SWR bandwidth of a lot of
antennas on the band. For the past few years, we have taken the same
approach as K5NA...we try to avoid calling CQ from 1830 - 1835. From the
sound of the band, many others take that approach as well because there do
seem to be noticeably fewer stateside stations calling there. Although, with
increased activity on the band this year it may not seem so. (I didn't
personally listen much to this segment this year, other ops did).
The object of this contest is to make as high a score as possible, not to work
DX (although that helps the score significantly). If you have trouble working
DX during the contest now, your chances of doing so will be better if you
improve upon your station performance (especially RX) rather than having a
small set of frequencies set aside.
There is never going to be parity in a contest; we've discussed this many
times. Not everyone gets to operate DX contests from the NE or SS from
Texas. Not everyone gets to hold a frequency like 14.001. Not everyone has
antennas that hear DX on 160. What you must do is meet the challenges that
exist and modify whatever is under your control to best enhance your score.
The bottom line is: If my competition uses these frequencies and I determine
that my use of these frequencies will result in a better score, then I _will_
use them.
I'm sorry if you disagree with this position; it's just a statement of fact.
73 de Lee AA4GA (operator @ AB4RU)
aa4ga at mcimail.com
>From Mr. Brett Graham" <bagraham at HK.Super.NET Sun Dec 11 13:49:31 1994
From: Mr. Brett Graham" <bagraham at HK.Super.NET (Mr. Brett Graham)
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 21:49:31 +0800
Subject: VS6BG ARRL 10m score
Message-ID: <199412111349.AA08575 at is1.hk.super.net>
Single-op CW
Qs: 159
Cs: 16 (FR ZS PY 9V BV JA UA0 VS6 VU A3 DU KH2 KH6 VK YB ZL)
Ss: 0
Score: 10112
Something ain't right when one of the bigger thrills of the contest was when
JAs started coming in direct, rather than scatter. Not a complete waste of
time - rate was low enough that I kept myself occupied fixing some broken kit
in the shack.
73, VS6BrettGraham aka VR2BG bagraham at hk.super.net 1348z 11 Dec 94
>From Douglas S. Zwiebel" <0006489207 at mcimail.com Sat Dec 10 16:13:00 1994
From: Douglas S. Zwiebel" <0006489207 at mcimail.com (Douglas S. Zwiebel)
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 94 11:13 EST
Subject: N2RM :-) :-)
Message-ID: <01941210161310/0006489207PK4EM at MCIMAIL.COM>
I operated at N2RM's once (I think?). I am not, and have never been
a member of FRC. When I was there, RM won M/M and I even got a cute
little trophy from the FRC for playing (what a nice touch!). I did
not know all the guys there, though I did know some. Maybe I am in
the clique (does once qualify?) but I sure don't realize it. I think
I have an open invitation to return (can't imagine them saying no).
K1KI has asked me to his place twice in the last few years. I haven't
gotten up there. Will this put me in the multi-clique category? :-)
And as for " :-) "....yup...you need them. I have found that even with
guys (gals) that KNOW you, it is easy to get 180 degrees off with words
alone. And if they don't know you, you're just about guaranteed to piss
them off. Tongue in Cheek is tough on this mode. I had the same thing
recently with my comments on THREAD (cut the thread)...I had no " ;-) "
inserted, so I got SERIOUS replies explaining what THREAD was (oy vay).
de Doug/KR2Q
>From abraun at alb.med.itc.com (Alan Braun) Sat Dec 10 18:02:45 1994
From: abraun at alb.med.itc.com (Alan Braun) (Alan Braun)
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 94 18:02:45 GMT
Subject: CT and OS/2
Message-ID: <94121064965 at alb.med.itc.com>
I'm thinking about switching to OS/2 Warp, but have some questions related
to CT. Would appreciate any comments/suggestions people might have.
1. Has anyone tried to run CT under OS/2, particularly OS/2 Warp? If so,
did you have to make any adjustments to the DOS session settings to make
things run right?
2. More specifically, when running CT under Windows, I've found that the
CW sending is badly fouled up, with 30 wpm CW coming out sounding like 3
wpm. Does this happen under OS/2 as well, and if so is there a way to fix
it?
3. I have the K1EA DVP board installed. Does OS/2 require a specific
device driver to make it work, or will it run in a DOS session by loading
the DVPTSR, like it does on a DOS-formatted machine?
I do a fair amount of contesting and use CT for all of my contest-related
activities, so my decision whether to try OS/2 (or not) will be influenced
by the answers to these questions. Thanks - 73 Alan NS0B
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Alan Braun MD, NS0B * Internet: abraun at alb.med.itc.com *
* Jefferson City, MO * Packet: NS0B at N0LBA.#cmo.mo.usa.noam *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>From Tower <thompsos at cuug.ab.ca> Sun Dec 11 17:53:01 1994
From: Tower <thompsos at cuug.ab.ca> (Tower)
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 10:53:01 -0700 (MST)
Subject: CT and OS/2
Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.91.941211103528.9906B-100000 at hp.cuug.ab.ca>
On Sat, 10 Dec 1994, Alan Braun wrote:
> 1. Has anyone tried to run CT under OS/2, particularly OS/2 Warp? If so,
> did you have to make any adjustments to the DOS session settings to make
> things run right?
I've run CT under OS/2 2.11 for some time now with no problems whatsoever.
There was no tweaking of the DOS settings required, the default seems to
work just fine.
> 2. More specifically, when running CT under Windows, I've found that the
> CW sending is badly fouled up, with 30 wpm CW coming out sounding like 3
> wpm. Does this happen under OS/2 as well, and if so is there a way to fix
> it?
I certainly havn't had any problems in that respect. One thing to remeber
is that OS/2 is a true multi-tasking environment, whereas Windoze is not.
Although Chicago/Win95 will probably fix this. (This is not meant to
start an OS war, so please, no flames :)
> 3. I have the K1EA DVP board installed. Does OS/2 require a specific
> device driver to make it work, or will it run in a DOS session by loading
> the DVPTSR, like it does on a DOS-formatted machine?
Can't comment on this one as I havn't tried it. Although I imagine it
would work just fine.
> I do a fair amount of contesting and use CT for all of my contest-related
> activities, so my decision whether to try OS/2 (or not) will be influenced
> by the answers to these questions. Thanks - 73 Alan NS0B
A number of people locally have gone to OS/2 recently, and none that I
know of regret the decision.
Just a note here. In my experience, most DOS based apps actually run
significantly faster in an OS/2 environment than they do in their native
DOS environment.
Regards,
Scott Thompson
VE6CGY/VE6MD
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list