YK88CN Filter

pescatore_jt%ncsd.dnet at gte.com pescatore_jt%ncsd.dnet at gte.com
Mon Jan 3 14:26:23 EST 1994

What is the YK88CN 250Hz filter worth? I'm not big on CW filters that
narrow and pulled it from my trusty backup radio.

Anyone want to buy it?

pescatore_jt at ncsd.gte.com

>From Danny Eskenazi <0005720561 at mcimail.com>  Mon Jan  3 19:26:00 1994
From: Danny Eskenazi <0005720561 at mcimail.com> (Danny Eskenazi)
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 94 14:26 EST
Subject: Whiney Radio
Message-ID: <82940103192628/0005720561PK4EM at mcimail.com>

I tried! I REALLY did! tried to avoid answering the K 2 Whiney Radio"comments"
....oh well.  Rich...you can still have your top ten box full of 1-2-3s...
we just want to feel like we have also been able to play in the game! Boxes
by zone or time zone, will not destroy THE top ten box...they will simply
give the rest of us something to shoot for. So when we get our magazines, we
willgo right to the Zone 3 box and see how we did with the rest of "our"
competition. The  rest of the world will still look for the TOP TEN OVERALL
box and see who the "best" ops are. Congratulations. 73 de K7SS

>From Skelton, Tom" <TSkelton at engineer.clemsonsc.NCR.COM  Mon Jan  3 16:32:00 1994
From: Skelton, Tom" <TSkelton at engineer.clemsonsc.NCR.COM (Skelton, Tom)
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 94 08:32:00 PST
Subject: FW:  Joe Walsh and his CW message
Message-ID: <2D28489A at admin.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM>

From: garlough
To: broz
Cc: cq-contest
Subject: Re:  Joe Walsh and his CW message
Date: Thursday, December 30, 1993 9:42AM

> BTW Is there a reflector logged onto this reflector.  ie  Why won't the
> messages go away, Trey?  The original authors are probably getting
> embarrassed by the use of bandwidth, or maybe they are still AMers.

The program that handles the subscription requests also has some AI
capability programmed into it, and it considered this to be such an
important thread, that it decided to recycle the messages.

 --Trey, WN4KKN/6, saving my Joe Walsh story for Dayton

That's it!!! This is all I want to hear....hello Dayton '94! 73, Tom WB4IUX
(still trying to get my first trip to Dayton)

>From tree at cmicro.com (Larry Tyree)  Mon Jan  3 21:11:22 1994
From: tree at cmicro.com (Larry Tyree) (Larry Tyree)
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 94 13:11:22 PST
Subject: SprINT
Message-ID: <9401032111.AA10799 at cmicro.com>

What a fun contest!!  Finished with 179 QSOs.

W6AQ was loud for a reason, he was using his amp.  He figured out during the
contest that there must be a low power limit as he consistently won in the
pileups and everyone seemed weak.  He sure gave me a run for my money being
about 2 QSOs ahead of me during the last half hour.

Those of you who mailed logs should be seeing a QSL message come back.

Tree N6TR

>From John Dorr K1AR" <p00259 at psilink.com  Mon Jan  3 22:29:20 1994
From: John Dorr K1AR" <p00259 at psilink.com (John Dorr K1AR)
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 94 17:29:20 -0500
Subject: Flames, Flames and More
Message-ID: <2966721051.0.p00259 at psilink.com>

With the new year and all, I had hoped that we'd all start afresh and wait 
until at least Wednesday before we start screaming at each other.

I believe the recent posting from K2WhiningRadio (credit K7SS on a witty 
observation) was not in reference to the way contest results are 
published but rather the over-discussed concept of equalization in general.
I am completely in favor of most of the reporting suggestions detailed here 
and will do what I can to influence those that I can to improve things.
I have a feeling this will be a non-issue after the next reporting year.

In defense of Rich, however, I also agree that we have just about beat 
the subject of equalization to death. Improved/fairer contest reporting does 
not equal score adjustments based on geography or your belt size. If I were 
in --say W6/7-- you can be sure that I'd be screaming for reporting that 
pits me against my peers. It's a concept that's long overdue! Would I
want to use a scoring equalization system to rate me against the
W1s??--I doubt it.

My recently completed 1993 CQ Contest Survey (see Feb '94 CQ when available)
will show overwhelmingly that constructive ideas such as "peer reporting",
SS mugs, participation certificates, 1st time entry awards, etc., are the 
kinds of things that contesting needs to keep everyone's interest 
piqued--not a multiplication factor of .694 based on your station's ERP 
divided by its proximity to the nearest 4-lane highway. And 
interestingly, the mid-west/west coast led the pack in that opinion!

Anyway, all this is for what's it's worth. HNY everyone and cheers for a 
FUN 1994!! 73 de John, K1AR

>From John W. Brosnahan" <broz at csn.org  Mon Jan  3 23:11:36 1994
From: John W. Brosnahan" <broz at csn.org (John W. Brosnahan)
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 16:11:36 -0700
Subject: Increasing contest activity
Message-ID: <199401032311.AA10741 at teal.csn.org>

I don't feel that I have been whining about the disadvantage of being
in Colorado, but I would like to join in this discussion.  Contest
sponsors are in the business of promoting their contests and that means
doing things that increase activity rather than decrease it.  Recognition
for achievement tends to increase activity and I believe some of the
"losing" scores from out west are greater achievements than "winning" scores
from New England.  But without any recognition there has been a tendency
to have fewer efforts from out west, especially during low sunspot periods.
There are at least five countries that are large enough geographically
to have widely different propagation across the same country.  Russia,
China, Australia, Canada, and the United States.  Each spans a number of
different time zones and a case can be made that two identical stations
with identical operators will have widely varying scores depending on 
location.  There is no way to "fix" the differences in propagation 
and it doesn't need to be "fixed".  And I certainly don't believe in the  
type of handicapping system that tends to even out every body, although 
we already have a handicapping system that awards different point values 
based on where both you and you contact are located, and I do believe that 
the handicapping system that is already in place may be obsolete and needs
to be re-evaluated.  The point that I am actively trying to make is that 
the DX contests need a method to recognize outstanding efforts no matter 
where they are made from, or participation will decline and all participants
will suffer because of the reduced activity.
The CQWW contest is a natural for dividing up large countries by zones, since
zones are already an important part of the test.  The ARRL DX tests could
be divided up by Divisions (probably too many),  Call Areas, or Time Zones
(as has been suggested).
I really don't feel that I am whining about this, just providing insight into
what motivates contesters (recognition) and suggesting ways that would
improve activity (assuming that is what the sponsors want).  And I don't
believe that it helps in this discussion to have comments from the east coast 
that characterize stations out west as whining, as if they wanted something 
they didn't deserve or hadn't earned.  Many station owners have made very 
serious committments to the hobby knowing full well of the propagation 
inequities, and yet deserve something more than just being told they are 
whiners by east coast stations who have already achieved their recognition 
and don't seem to want anyone else to have any.
73  John  W0UN

>From Susan M. King (8-695-3688)" <ku2q at vnet.IBM.COM  Tue Jan  4 01:26:16 1994
From: Susan M. King (8-695-3688)" <ku2q at vnet.IBM.COM (Susan M. King (8-695-3688))
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 94 20:26:16 EST
Subject: Internet Sprint Results



Certainly valid QSOs - 38
Plus one maybe          1

Total possible score - 39

/* ------------- Excuses ----------
This is the first sprint I have ever tried.  It's complicated.
It's the first time I have been on the air in months.  All those
West Coast stations have a big advantage.  They all already know
each other's names.  For the first QSO with K7LR I was unprepared--
I have no idea whether I got the exchange correct--the name sent
may have been RICH or RALPH and the number could have been 3 or
some number greater than that.  I guessed.  The scorekeeper will have
to decide.  That's the "maybe" QSO in my score.

The first time I worked NV6O, I did send back N4BO to him, but I did write
NV6O in my log.  I have the original hand-written log and the contest
committee is welcome to come check it out.

I have an unpleasant feeling that SURL may be a variation of the
nice name SUSAN.  All you male chauvenist pig operators aren't used
to nice sweet names like Susan.  That's your loss.

Twice I made QSOs too close to others with the same station.  I should
have used a computer log.  Oh, well.
-------- End of Excuses ------------ */

Total possible good QSOs = 39.  Total certainly good QSOs = 38.

I had fun.  I was honest.  No one helped me.  I did not use packet,
spotting nets, or an East/West Coast advantage.  I used my real name.
Until I read the rules carefully I had planned to use the name BITCH
but K5NA talked me out of it.  Carefully.

Thanks, Susan M. King - ku2q at vnet.ibm.com

>From XMSJ29A at prodigy.com (MR JAMES A WHITE)  Tue Jan  4 02:09:49 1994
From: XMSJ29A at prodigy.com (MR JAMES A WHITE) (MR JAMES A WHITE)
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 1994 21:09:49 EST
Subject: Seniority...good or bad...
Message-ID: <025.00186507.XMSJ29A at prodigy.com>

Is it that I now take my GRANDDAUGHTER to Disneyworld that makes me feel
seniority is a good thing? Back in the 70's I was in one of the last blocks
to be able to get the "new" pick-a-call calls, but I understood...sure I
hated it, and because of it I ended up getting my second choice. I'm unsure
just why I find remarks sent to me blasting seniority as a Vanity callsign
filter upsetting?

I am sorry, but seniority IS a major thing in Ham Radio...I don't care what
you say, I have no interest in talking with someone who ain't been around a
while. I think that's in part because I have been immersed in Ham Radio all
my life and these New Kids on the Band while being able to show me how to
work Packett just ain't got the wisdom.

Maybe I read too much of Cassidy's stuff about the man on the hill, or
maybe it IS just so. New guys are new guys...old guys have done everything
right and wrong a few times, and hence are interesting people, and are
worth more to the hobby because of it.

The most interesting car trip of my life was a ride from San Francisco to
the Visalia DX Convention with W6CF and W7RM...talk about mainlining the
good stuff for a few hours! These guys were way more than twice my age and
I was, as any good contester, all ears!  As KM9P, and KI3V pointed out
recently it takes time to reach that goal-the very biggest part of it is
the time it takes to accumulate the knowledge be it of propagation or
antennas or...

To WX3W, and others who think there should NOT be any tiering of initial
vanity call application requests:

                        A) How many guys on the reflector have talked about
                          just missing their opportunity in the 70's......
                         think they're as willing for the free for all?

                        B) Think the FCC might prefer a little easier
                     transition into this thing by getting
          applications from the few hams left living who
        have been licensed over 20 years, first...versus
        the floodgates opening and their being swamped?

                        C) Think of it as kinda like how you offer to pick
                          up an old man's cane when he drops it...

...sorry to take up so much e-mail space but I do think it is:
                     The Right Thing To Do.
WX3W-you have a good '94 sonny-we'll be seein' you down the log
                           Jim, K1ZX               ...no lids, no kids, no

>From Walton L. Stinson" <wstinson at csn.org  Tue Jan  4 02:21:54 1994
From: Walton L. Stinson" <wstinson at csn.org (Walton L. Stinson)
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 19:21:54 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Whinus occidentus
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.9401031952.E19412-8100000 at teal.csn.org>

rich, the situation is a bit different than your description. some
of the best stations, best operators, and best efforts are largely
unrecognized.  is there a good argument why this situation should
go uncorrected?  73, Walt, W0CP

>From Linda Krueger" <krueg010 at maroon.tc.umn.edu  Tue Jan  4 02:03:10 1994
From: Linda Krueger" <krueg010 at maroon.tc.umn.edu (Linda Krueger)
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 94 20:03:10 -0600
Subject: Minnesota QSO Party?

In message <757579225.930000.BELCHER at UHCCVX.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU> Gary Belcher 
> Is there anyone on the refl that is in the St Paul MN area that acan post
> details of that QSO party they are naving next weekened?  Something about
> the temperature at the station that gives points. Maybe Id have a chance
> from KH6 huh? Thanks de Gary KH6GMP Pearl City HI
> -------

Greetings from Saint Paul, Minnesota!  The MN Frostbite Falls Beach Party is
1800-2400 UTC Jan 8th.  Sponsored by the St. Paul Radio Club, K0AGF.

Exchange:  for MN stns:  county and current temp in degrees C
           non-MN stns:  State/prov/country and current temp in degrees C

Scoring:   for MN stns:  1 pt per phone QSO, 2 pts per CW QSO
                         Total score = ave temp of all QSOs + QSO points
                         Station with highest score wins

           non-MN stns:  minus 1 pt per phone QSO, minus 2 per CW QSO
                         Total score = ave temp of all QSOs + QSO points
                         STATION WITH LOWEST SCORE WINS!

Non-MN stations work MN only.  MN stations work non-MN only.

BTW:  deg C =  (deg F - 32) * 5 / 9       The forcast is for (-18)C tonight.

Plaques awarded to winning stations.  Certificate to all non-MN'er with
at least 5 QSOs.  Logs go to Ed Van Cleave, AA0HI, 2700 16th St NW,
St. Paul, MN 55112.

See announcements in Dec QST page 129 or January CQ page 151.

Kevin N0IOS

>From Steve Sample <aa9ax at coplex.com>  Tue Jan  4 03:23:50 1994
From: Steve Sample <aa9ax at coplex.com> (Steve Sample)
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 22:23:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Whining moratoria
Message-ID: <Pine.3.88.9401032256.C1652-0100000 at coplex>

On Mon, 3 Jan 1994, David C. Patton wrote:

> Rich, K2WR says the geographic bias whining is VERY (x 3) boring.
> Actually, what I find VERY boring is seeing the top ten lists from
> most major contests that consist of nothing but W1s 2s and 3s.  
> I think most of us know there are geographic advantages/disadvantages
> in contesting, and we ACCEPT this.  It seems that K2WR and WB2EKK
> have missed the point of the whining:  Stupidity in contest rules,
> and contest reporting that highlight east coast achievements tend to
> ENFORCE the idea of East Coast dominance.  For instance:
> Why does CQ continue to reward 10 points for inter-continental QSOs
> in the 160 M contest?  Is this an acceptable geographic bias, or is
> this just stupidity written into the contest rules?
> Why does CQWW still give 2 points for inter-North American QSOs, but
> only one point for the rest of the continents?  This rule was
> designed to stimulate more activity from the Caribbean, but is it
> still necessary?  Is this an acceptable geographic bias, or is this
> an outmoded rule that should either be removed or expanded?  Maybe if
> Asians got two points for their Asian QSOs we could stimulate lots of
> activity from Asia.  Last I knew there were bunches of multipliers in
> Asia that might be activated by JA contesters much the same way US
> contesters flock to the Caribbean.  
> Why does CQWW only list the top 6 in multi-single and multi-multi?
> Six slots is usually about what it takes to recognize the serious
> east coast entrants.  Geographic bias or reporting bias?
> I can go on, but it is moot.  Until East Coast guys start to push for
> changes, nothing will happen.  We in the West have been "whining" for
> years and nothing has happened.  
> You want to hear us stop whining, help us correct the stupidity in
> the ways contests are run and reported.  Top ten lists by zone will
> go a long way towards correcting this problem. Not just top ten
> lists, but band by band breakdowns for each area.  I think the most
> interesting/useful part of the CQWW report is the band-by-band table.
>  Except it doesn't do us much good for comparison when there are no
> geographically similar numbers.  
> People do not complain for no reason.  "Whining" is a serious
> indicator of problems--analagous to the sensation of pain in living
> creatures; it is telling you to stop or change what you are doing
> before you permanently damage something.  If we are still "whining"
> there must still be time to change the system.  Otherwise we're just
> going to stop whining, stop operating, stop subscribing, and stop
> improving ourselves.  I join KM9P in the boycott of the CQ 160
> contests--"contests that resemble apartheid."  
> If anybody wants to whine, I say continue to whine.  Whining will
> continue to provide fodder for humorous messages from W3 which in
> effect recognize that there is a problem.
> 73, Dave Patton, WX3N/9

   Just thought I would attach a note to your views on the 160 tests from 
Indiana.  I, too, don't feel that a midwestern station can win in the CQ160 
because of the Dx scoring rules which favor the east coast.  It takes 
awaysome of my interest in operating in that test.  They have made some 
advances this year in adding the low power class, but their awards plan 
is skimpy.  I noticed in QST's 1992 ARRL 160 test results last year that 
Billy Lunt inserted a question about whether the rules ought to be 
changes to encourage more DX participation.  I wrote to him expressin my 
views that the ARRL 160 test was much more fair to the average operator 
in the U.S., and that any move towards adopting rules more like the CQ160 
would most certainly detract from my interest in the test.  There will 
never be an answer that is universally acceptable, but if contests are 
all made to be weighted to one coast or the other, there will likely be a 
reduction in the effort from our heartland!  

I speak as Chief of the Weenie Whiner Police in Southern Indiana.

73-     Steve/AA9AX 

>From Jack Fleming <oolon at eskimo.com>  Tue Jan  4 06:41:00 1994
From: Jack Fleming <oolon at eskimo.com> (Jack Fleming)
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 22:41:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 1992 WA0RJY List - Top 10
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9401032256.A26092-0100000 at eskimo.com>

OK, OK, OK, OK!  I can take a hint.  All this back-and-forth whining 
about East Coast/West Coast bias and special boxes in the contest results 
is just an organized effort to get me to come out with the best 
contesters on the West Coast.  OK.  I sat down and did the work.  You win.  
Here are the results.  And I don't want to hear any, "Why don't you use 
average score instead of total?" or "This doesn't give guys like me credit 
because..." or "Those aren't the contests that I entered"!!!!!

With that clear, here are the results.  The only contesters rated 
were those from the 6th and 7th districts.  And they are only 
competing against each other.  Remember that the contests that 
are included are the 1992 CQWW, ARRL DX, Sweepstakes, and WPX.  
Both modes.  All single op categories (including assisted, single 
band, QRP...).  The score is the total number of competitors that were 
defeated in all the contests.  So when I finished 86th in the 1992 
Sweepstakes CW and had a score better than 158 other area 6 and 7 
contesters - I got 158 points from that contest.

Here are the best overall contesters on the West Coast in 1992:

	1. N6TV     1,077 points
	2. AA6KX      875
    	3. W6UQF      864
        4. N7TT       855
        5. N6IP       849
       t6. W6BSY      810
       t6. W6QHS      810
        8. KI3V       804
        9. W7HS       756
       10. W7WA       753

There they are, the best operators on the West Coast.  In cases of guest 
operators the points went to the operator - not the host station.  

I will be publishing the top CW and SSB ops soon.  If you want to know 
what your score was, send me mail - I've got scores for everyone that 
entered (my score was 691 - but that was mostly QRP, and my QTH isn't in 
that great of a location, and some of them were single band entries, 
plus I wasn't feeling well during the WPX, and I hate phone contests, 
plus I'm getting too old for this and think we should have only 12 hour 
contests anyway...).  Now remember I don't want to hear any whining!

A special tip of the keyer to AA6EE, W7HS, and W7QN who were the only 
three to send in entries to ALL 8 contests!  

Jack Fleming, WA0RJY                          oolon at eskimo.com
20148 6th Avenue NE
Seattle, WA  98155                            DON'T PANIC!

>From bhorn at netcom.com (Bruce Horn)  Tue Jan  4 07:42:19 1994
From: bhorn at netcom.com (Bruce Horn) (Bruce Horn)
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 23:42:19 -0800
Subject: CQWW Top 5 by Zone
Message-ID: <199401040742.XAA28102 at mail.netcom.com>

OK folks.  This is what the results of the 1992 CQ Worldwide might have looked
like if grouped by zone.  Because I had already spent too much time on this
project of the moment, I elected to approximate zones by combining call areas,
rather than trying to determine the actual zone.  Obviously, those assembling
the results for CQWW have the zone of each contestant readily available.

Anyway, here it is.

----------- 1992 CQ Worldwide SSB -------------------

Single Operator, All Band, High Power

  Simulated Zone 3 (call areas 6 & 7) Top 5
    N7TT     2,502,957
    N7AVK    2,401,136
    NN7L     2,301,168
    W7RM     1,735,674
    N6EK     1,619,415

  Simulated Zone 4 (call areas 5,8,9,0) Top 5
    N5RZ     4,170,400
    W9RE     3,835,302
    W9ZRX    2,899,624
    K0KX     2,829,480
    W9UP     2,566,707

  Simulated Zone 5 (call areas 1,2,3,4) Top 5
    K1AR     7,810,446
    KM1H     6,110,260
    N6BV/1   5,063,702
    N2LT     4,687,611
    W3BGN    4,172,161

Single Operator, All Band, Low Power

  Simulated Zone 3 (call areas 6 & 7) Top 5
    WB6JPY     754,974
    K6XV       751,430
    WA0RJY/7   678,452
    W7TSQ      670,076
    WB6JMS     668,304

  Simulated Zone 4 (call areas 5,8,9,0) Top 5
    N8II     1,864,747
    N6WLX/8  1,057,595
    WB9IQI     900,015
    NG9L       688,540
    KF8K       673,987

  Simulated Zone 5 (call areas 1,2,3,4) Top 5
    K0EJ/4   1,207,288
    KG1D     1,160,764
    WA2UUK   1,154,136
    K4VUD    1,052,470
    KB3MP/4  1,034,437


  Simulated Zone 3 (call areas 6 & 7) Top 5
    W6GO     4,852,386
    N6UR     3,035,093
    WA6IET   2,535,360
    WA7EGA   2,193,789
    W6EEN    2,168,199

  Simulated Zone 4 (call areas 5,8,9,0) Top 5
    KS9K     6,634,893
    K8AZ     6,039,200
    AA8U     5,037,746
    WB8K     4,710,445
    W0CP     3,894,240

  Simulated Zone 5 (call areas 1,2,3,4) Top 5
    K1DG     8,446,958
    N3RS     7,077,636
    KC1XX    6,627,310
    K4ISV    6,098,814
    N8RA/1   5,631,731


  Simulated Zone 3 Top 5
    NK7U     6,199,050
    N6AW     5,541,176
    (that's all)

  Simulated Zone 4 Top 5
    N5AU    12,427,070
    AA6TT/0 11,891,552
    K4VX/0   8,233,984
    W0AIH/9  6,700,464
    KN8Z     6,185,100

  Simulated Zone 5 Top 5
    N2RM    19,603,032
    K2TR    14,266,383
    K3LR    14,120,088
    NX1H    12,347,656
    W4MYA    9,009,338

-------------------- 1992 CQWW CW --------------------------

Single Op, All Band, High Power

  Simulated Zone 3 Top 5
    N6UR     3,729,600
    W6QHS    2,426,052
    NN7L     2,392,716
    W6EEN    2,244,784
    N6ND     2,091,740

  Simulated Zone 4 Top 5
    KN8Z     5,436,795
    K5GN     3,766,785
    W9RE     3,611,400
    K8GL     3,027,674
    K4XU/9   2,416,540

  Simulated Zone 5 Top 5
    N4RJ     5,851,152
    N2NT     5,705,000
    KM1H     5,675,756
    W1KM     5,394,604
    K3ZO     4,949,992

Single Op, All Band, Low Power

  Simulated Zone 3 Top 5
    W6JTI      873,624
    W6UQF      719,946
    K7MM       328,335
    WA7UVJ     295,152
    K6XO/7     261,967

  Simulated Zone 4 Top 5
    N8II     2,008,982
    N8RR/5   1,185,845
    N5AW     1,062,400
    WB8YJF   1,026,084
    K5KLA      890,012

  Simulated Zone 5 Top 5
    W2TZ     1,986,240
    K7SV/4   1,335,780
    KM1X     1,266,515
    KG1D     1,200,600
    N4YDU    1,095,578


  Simulated Zone 3 Top 5
    W6GO     5,252,702
    NK7U     3,075,776
    K6XT     2,379,104
    WA6IET   1,043,238
    KA6NAL     940,615

  Simulated Zone 4 Top 5
    W5WMU    5,361,675
    WD8LLD   3,968,982
    W0CP     3,121,965
    W8BI     2,942,640
    NC0P     2,940,416

  Simulated Zone 5 Top 5
    N3RS     8,585,380
    K1KI     8,207,816
    K1DG     7,751,014
    WW2Y     6,062,210
    N4WW     5,821,605


  Simulated Zone 3 Top 5
    N6DX     7,800,895
    W6BA     5,721,408
    (that's all)

  Simulated Zone 4 Top 5
    AA6TT/0  9,460,602
    W0AIH    7,748,370

  Simulated Zone 5 Top 5
    K1AR    19,473,615
    N2RM    18,408,663
    W3LPL   16,702,372
    AD1C    12,690,432
    KY1H     7,821,044

What you don't see from the above is that some of the better zones 3 and 4
contest stations elected to operate single band, rather than all band.  Some
groupings produced extremely competitive scores, while others had a tremendous
range over the top 5.

Happy new year from the left coast.

73 de Bruce, WA7BNM

>From Willy Umanets <uw9ar at chal.chel.su>  Tue Jan  4 16:53:10 1994
From: Willy Umanets <uw9ar at chal.chel.su> (Willy Umanets)
Date: Tue,  4 Jan 94 11:53:10 -0500
Subject: Why do I contest, late comments
Message-ID: <AAsxPAjeO7 at chal.chel.su>

Happy New Year!

I wanted to jump in with my thoughts on the subject "why do we contest-
East C. vs. West C.- equlized rules- e.t.c." ever since it was fired up
by Eric, K3NA back in May.93 , or mebbe it was George, WB5VZL ?
I did mean to call all these topics "the subject" because all it has to
do with is our ego that's always hungry.
Some boys that once used to enjoy winning from the East C. and then having
had to move farther West away from victorious places but to even bigger
stations still want to see their names in the US top ten lines, since they
know they are as good or mebbe even better then those in the East.
My answer to that is - go EAST, don't change the rules, though.

Some boys that once used to have enough drive and money to go to places like
PJ or EA8 or something even more exotic and win the WORLD top ten, now
want to be recognized as the WORLD top ten ops in every other contest, since
they proved it once or twice or so, but they don't want (can't) go that
far away, do each time they wanna win all that boring assembly of the station
from the scrach e.t.c. They would rather sit back home enjoy the comfort
of their neatly designed stations, the comfort of not having to worry about
sacrifying 5 minutes of 200some QSO's an hr to having to cook some light snack
for yourself, the comfort of staying w/your family and not having to explain
to the XYL, that in order to get to the top you MUST go to that ELDORADIO, e.t.c.
Lotsa problems, oh yeh! My answer to that is - stay home and enjoy competition
East vs West or go to ELDORADIO, don't change the rules, though.

Now. In the days, when there was terrifying USSR on evry map, we, the short
wave committee of USSR FRS, tried to come up with equalized rules for our
national championship (Russia is in 9 (nine) time zones). Before the Champs
lived in Asian part - UA9 (UK9AAN/UZ9AYA used to win many times), UL7(UN1...0),
UA0. Ever since the rules were "equalized" (with very strong influence of
UW3AA, the Chairman), the Champs "moved" to UA3 land. Honestly, I at first
considered the modified rules as very fair, but one thing we didn't take into
consideration was increased activity in European part of USSR (becuz of new rules)
which created a need for "modified equalization". At the same time the big
disscusion about the "equalized" rules had started on the air in USSR and as
one of the results of it a reduction of activity from Asiatic part occured,
which again called for a modification of almost ready to be implemented
"modified equalization" rules. So, this transaction period cud take years,
yet I personally doubdt if the ultimate goal - "equalized" rules cud ever be
reached. Equalization proccess, unfortunately mixed up with detirioration of
the USSR and it is hard to tell whether or not it was the equalization or both
that completly ruined the National Championship (lil over 200 logs submitted
last year versus 600-850 logs in mid 80's).

And finally, I beg the CQ Committee to really care about any changes in the
CQWW Contest rules. I consider the CQ CONTEST as the major jule among all
other respectfull contests. It is the unequalized/unballanced rules that make
dozens of dedicated ("crazy" - non ham name of it) guys go to their Eldoradios
and make the contest so much fun to us all, it is unequlized rules that make
hundreds of us to put up bigger ant's, build/buy better radios, apply new
technologies of communication to our wonderfull hobby and so on, and so on...
Imagine, we won't need to be real tough to be able ta amass over 6000qso in
CW wkend or over 8000 in phone, cuz I heard of a 24hr, 18hr, 5minute( I enjoed
that message, Dannie HI-HI) versions of participation time. Participation in
CQWW every year since 1972 made me think that short wave contesting IS A REAL
SPORT and I am proud of having been able to put up with 48 hr non stop operations
at UK9AAN/UZ9AYA that put us on the top lines a few times among such tigers as
N2AA(K2GL M/M), K1AR, W3LPL, KH6XX, XE2MX(m/m-'1983), PJ1B, EA8CR (I am only
mentioning our rivals throught the years, when we were on the top or next to it).
I wudn't be nearly as proud had I won it in a 5 minute crazy 15 qso a minute run.
Want to be the 5 minute Champ? Go to Dayton, and take your chance in Kansas
CW copying test, you will figure out if you are THE CHAMP in 2 hours.

I used to grow up as contester with standards/examples set by N6AA, OH2BH & Co.,
Ron - FY0BHI, PJ9JT now PJ1B (K3NA's 1100 qso's in first 3 hours on 20m on
phone, isn't it amazing?), VP2KC (those,that think the boys didn't do it - I
am sorry), K1AR & K1DG @ HI8XWP (8000 qso's with one radio and two ops -
something unheard of in 1978, huh?), W3AU, W3WJD, WA2ZAA/N2AA and many many
othrs that I used to admire and used to learn a lot from. To me, then a young
man they were THE WORLD CHAMPIONS. I guess everybody understands the difference
between the potential possibility for a young man to become THE WORLD CHAMP in
a tough real-sport-like competition and the possibility to become a winner in
a time zone, or just CQ ZONE within some luckely chosen 24 hours of operation
out of 48 and without having to go through pain and strain and then having to
explain to a girl friend that he - the young man - is almost the world champ,
but not quite, because....bla, bla, bla, so he is actually the CHAMP.
Gees, I gess tts inuff.
please leave the format of the contest as is!
I am still hoping, one day I will be able to go to my Eldoradio and try to win
the WORLD's CHAMPION TITEL, I know I will have to quit smoking, possibly
drinking (the way I do it now), do some physical training, extend my
knowledge of many many things ( how to fix broken radio, how to chose & install
adequate antennas at particular location e.t.c....)  yet improve my operating
abilities, learn about survival and a lot more to do before I could go and
win, but there is a great CHALLENGE to become THE WORLD CHAMPION. Please,
don't take it away from me, from my son, Paul, who is 4 now and from many
others as well.

With best of season's greetngs Willy, UW9AR.

73, Willy, UW9AR
JV "Challenger Ltd"                 phone : 351-260-0190
Internet : uw9ar at chal.chel.su       fax   : 351-237-1756

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list