CT, NA, and the Icom IC-761

sawyer at twg.com sawyer at twg.com
Tue Jan 4 22:25:52 EST 1994

I have both CT and NA working just fine with my 761, and have never had
any problems doing it.  I have to TTL/232 interfaces, one I built using
the MAX232 (from QST last January) and one using separate line drivers/
line receivers, plus a 555-based -9V power supply.  I should mention,
though, that I've never been able to get either CT or NA to talk to the
rig over COM3 or COM4--I have to use COM 1 or COM2.  I know my 3 and 4
ports are working fine, but even version 8 of CT seems to balk at it.
I've tried using those ports for the TNC connection, and what's curious
is that keyboard input goes through to the TNC just fine, but I cant
receive any output from the TNC.  So when contest time rolls around I just
disconnect my mouse (also only good on COM1 or COM2, courtesy of half-
baked drivers) and hook up the line for computer control of the rig.
                                         Bruce, AA6KX

>From bhorn at netcom.com (Bruce Horn)  Wed Jan  5 07:10:11 1994
From: bhorn at netcom.com (Bruce Horn) (Bruce Horn)
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 23:10:11 -0800
Subject: ARRL DX Top 5 by Zones
Message-ID: <199401050710.XAA28153 at mail.netcom.com>

Hi All,

Corrected 1992 CQ Worldwide SSB for Multi/Single

  Simulated Zone 4 Top 5
    KS9K     6,634,893
    K8AZ     6,039,200
    AA8U     5,037,746
    WB8K     4,710,445
    K0KR     4,324,986

While waiting for Pratas Is. to show up this evening, I decided to compile the
top 5 lists by zone for the 1992 ARRL DX contest.  These top 5 lists were
compiled from the published results in QST.  Since QST groups results by
section, I was able to determine the zone of each contestant for single ops.
For multi/ efforts, the zone was approximated by combining call areas, as was
done for the CQWW lists.

Here it is.

----------- 1992 ARRL DX SSB -------------------

Single Operator, All Band, High Power

  Zone 3 Top 5
    WC6H     1,918,590
    N7TT     1,510,692
    NB7N       926,076
    W6REC      718,029
    WA7FOE     595,791

  Zone 4 Top 5
    W9RE     3,414,534
    N5RZ     2,565,888
    W9ZRX    2,064,150
    WZ4F     1,951,266
    K8GL     1,587,618

  Zone 5 Top 5
    K1DG     4,082,463
    K1ZM     4,034,052
    N6BV/1   3,963,519
    W3BGN    3,097,584
    K3ZO     2,728,713

Single Operator, All Band, Low Power

  Zone 3 Top 5
    W7YAQ      586,188
    N6NF       364,506
    KJ6HO      360,000
    K7MM       351,480
    AA7RN      338,742

  Zone 4 Top 5
    N6WLX/8    819,798
    KS9B       795,108
    KE2JO/4    564,135
    K9LJN      561,885
    AC0W       482,922

  Zone 5 Top 5
    N8II     1,375,998
    W2TZ     1,055,610
    KE2ZU      703,152
    WA2EOV     674,541
    WS1A       644,736


  Simulated Zone 3 (call areas 6 & 7) Top 5
    W6EEN    1,755,549
    W7RM     1,347,990
    NV6O     1,317,483
    KV6H       748,095
    W6OAT      533,619

  Simulated Zone 4 (call areas 5,8,9,0) Top 5
    K8AZ     4,130,820
    KS9K     3,779,787
    KW8N     3,412,530
    AA8U     3,206,268
    AB5K/0   1,646,394

  Simulated Zone 5 (call areas 1,2,3,4) Top 5
    AD1C     3,857,040
    W3XU     3,599,274
    K1VR     3,388,392
    AA1K     3,355,200
    KE2AY    3,220,206


  Simulated Zone 3 Top 5
    W6ISA    2,611,089
    N7RO     1,342,320
    KF6HI    1,220,832
    N7QQ       703,440
    (that's all)

  Simulated Zone 4 Top 5
    K0RF     4,787,496
    K5NA     4,693,500
    (that's all)

  Simulated Zone 5 Top 5
    K1AR     9,851,358
    N3RS     7,427,970
    K2TR     6,891,846
    WW2Y     2,837,460
    WM1K     1,712,016


  Simulated Zone 3 Top 5
    NK7U     4,522,425
    (that's all)

  Simulated Zone 4 Top 5
    K5XI     5,746,284
    W0AIH    4,076,865
    (that's all)

  Simulated Zone 5 Top 5
    N2RM    13,024,950
    W3LPL   11,124,594
    K1RX     6,918,531
    W4MYA    5,435,664
    NF2L     4,603,365

-------------------- 1992 ARRL DX CW --------------------------

Single Op, All Band, High Power

  Zone 3 Top 5
    NN7L     1,272,141
    W6EEN    1,129,257
    N7TT       954,081
    N6AA       455,880
    W6UM       434,838

  Zone 4 Top 5
    K5GN     2,339,064
    KW8N     2,315,196
    N4AR     2,080,860
    W9RE     2,006,118
    N2IC/0   1,867,140

  Zone 5 Top 5
    K1ZM     3,324,672
    KM1H     3,281,718
    W1KM     3,100,629
    N2LT     2,920,020
    N6BV/1   2,912,112

Single Op, All Band, Low Power

  Zone 3 Top 5
    W7YAQ      673,728
    W6JTI      480,528
    WA0RJY/7   299,376
    K7MM       289,152
    KE7NS      190,323

  Zone 4 Top 5
    N8AA       919,320
    K5RX       908,193
    WB8YJF     508,254
    K5KLA      440,538
    N8AGU      437,760

  Zone 5 Top 5
    W1PH     1,542,468
    W2TZ     1,115,868
    K7SV/4   1,071,216
    K0EJ/4     929,070
    KC1SJ      921,591


  Simulated Zone 3 Top 5
    W6BA     1,788,912
    KG6GF    1,498,860
    K6JYO    1,170,855
    W6ISA    1,144,521
    K6KM       958,569

  Simulated Zone 4 Top 5
    K8CX     1,608,045
    W9XT     1,335,510
    K5OJI    1,053,864
    WB8OHO     932,310
    K0KE       481,770

  Simulated Zone 5 Top 5
    K3LR     3,906,720
    W3BGN    3,650,787
    N4RJ     3,389,463
    K1VR     2,733,234
    K2WI     2,727,000


  Simulated Zone 3 Top 5
    W6GO     2,133,786
    NK7U     1,724,598
    WK6V       462,264
    (that's all)

  Simulated Zone 4 Top 5
    K8AZ     4,647,258
    WD8LLD   2,618,136
    NC0P     2,026,176
    K8LX     1,461,660
    (that's all)

  Simulated Zone 5 Top 5
    K1AR     7,882,974
    N2NT     6,968,592
    N3RS     5,938,665
    K2TR     5,787,096
    K1DG     5,597,550


  Simulated Zone 3 Top 5
    N6CQ     1,344,264
    (that's all)

  Simulated Zone 4 Top 5
    K8CC     5,037,210
    AA6TT/0  5,018,436
    W0AIH    3,200,496
    (that's all)

  Simulated Zone 5 Top 5
    W3LPL    8,792,388
    K1RX     7,661,262
    K4VX     5,710,944
    KY1H     4,628,286
    N2RM     4,252,248

73 de Bruce, WA7BNM

P.S. Enough compilation for awhile. This should give the contest
sponsors an idea of what works and what doesn't.

>From Willy Umanets <uw9ar at chal.chel.su>  Wed Jan  5 15:47:37 1994
From: Willy Umanets <uw9ar at chal.chel.su> (Willy Umanets)
Date: Wed,  5 Jan 94 10:47:37 -0500
Subject: MORE ON CIS PX'es
Message-ID: <AAP4kAjau7 at chal.chel.su>

I finally saw the official document regarding CIS prefix distribution.
The document I saw was a letter from Russian Department of Communications
to its Chelyabinsk branch.

Here's what I saw:

     OLD PX         NEW SERIES

      UD            4JA-4KZ
      UG            EKA-EKZ
      UC            EUA-EWZ
      UF            4LA-4LZ
      UL            UNA-UQZ
      UM            EXA-EXZ
      UO            ERA-ERZ
      UA            RAA-RZZ, UAA-UIZ
      UJ            EYA-EYZ
      UH            EZA-EZZ
      UI            UJA-UMZ
      UB            URA-UZZ, EMA-EOZ

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

>From k2mm at MasPar.COM (John Zapisek)  Wed Jan  5 09:22:41 1994
From: k2mm at MasPar.COM (John Zapisek) (John Zapisek)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 01:22:41 PST
Subject: CT, NA, and the Icom IC-761
Message-ID: <9401050922.AA12047 at greylock.local>

> I've never been able to get either CT or NA to talk to the rig over COM3
> or COM4--I have to use COM 1 or COM2.  I've [also] tried using those ports
> for the TNC connection, and what's curious is that keyboard input goes
> through to the TNC just fine, but I cant receive any output from the TNC.

I ran into a similar problem setting up CT at AG6D.  Turned out to be the
interrupt levels of the COM ports.

I started with COM1 and COM2 for the network and COM3 for the radio.  I was
using standard DOS interrupt levels:

    Port		COM1	COM2	COM3	COM4
    DOS Standard	INT4	INT3	INT4	INT3
    COMTSR Default	INT4	INT3	INT9	INT5

Because COM3 was on INT4 (DOS standard) instead of INT9 (CT default), I had
to start COMTSR3 with a "-I4" switch.

It worked somewhat, but the radio response was slow, and it would sometimes
say "radio not responding".  I fixed it by moving jumpers on the COM boards
to give each port its own interrupt.  They weren't CT defaults, but that's
OK because each COMTSR can be told what interrupt the hardware is using.

It was very handy to have some diagnostic software ("CHECKIT") that told me
what interrupt level each port was responding at.

Now I've got a computer with a COM3 port using a non-standard interrupt that
works OK with CT but won't work with my communications software.  I get the
same behavior as you see with your TNC -- keyboard input goes TO the modem
just fine, but I can't receive any output FROM the modem.

Hope this helps.  73.  --John/K2MM

>From Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH at TGV.COM>  Wed Jan  5 16:06:25 1994
From: Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH at TGV.COM> (Trey Garlough)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 08:06:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: more whining
Message-ID: <757785985.996435.GARLOUGH at TGV.COM>

Rich, K2WR, writes:

> Can we PLEASE have a moratorium on the incessant whining about the
> various geographical biases that are inherent in our activity?
> The contest rules did not create this situation; please blame the gods
> of solar and geo- physics and the socio-economic influences that created
> uneven population densities across the globe.  Every part of the world
> is good for something and bad for something else.
> So I'm sorry that the East Coast is closer to Europe.  I'm sorry that
> the number of contesters in Japan went down.
> Your dissatisfaction with the
> state of the world of contesting has been noted. It really has.
> So please find something else to say.  It's getting VERY, VERY, VERY,

I agree 100% with Rich and think he is totally on the right track.  In 
fact, why don't we take this attitude to it's logical conclusion and 
eliminate the top USA and Europe boxes from the CQWW writeup.  I propose 
there only be a box that shows the top ten single op scores in the WORLD.
The fact that they made the highest scores clearly indiacates they are
the best operators.  The CQWW results as they are published now 
shamelessly pander to those pikers in the US and Europe who can't cut the
mustard and make the WORLD top ten.  Don't you agree?

--Trey, WN4KKN/6

>From Jim Reisert AD1C  05-Jan-1994 1114 <reisert at wrksys.enet.dec.com>  Wed Jan  5 16:09:12 1994
From: Jim Reisert AD1C  05-Jan-1994 1114 <reisert at wrksys.enet.dec.com> (Jim Reisert AD1C 05-Jan-1994 1114)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 11:09:12 EST
Subject: more on CIS prefixes (old UI, UC)
Message-ID: <9401051609.AA15033 at us1rmc.bb.dec.com>

Saw UK8AA (ex-RI8AA) and UK9AA (ex-UI8AA) spotted this morning.  So I guess
that implies:

	RI8 -> UK8
	UI8 -> UK9

Also, saw UC2LFT spotted last night, from Belarus.  Guess they have not
changed over to new prefixes yet.

73 - Jim AD1C

>From Walton L. Stinson" <wstinson at csn.org  Wed Jan  5 15:53:23 1994
From: Walton L. Stinson" <wstinson at csn.org (Walton L. Stinson)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 08:53:23 -0700 (MST)
Subject: ARRL Contest Advisory Committe Update
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.9401050823.I16329-b100000 at teal.csn.org>

Just got a note from Randy, K5ZD, who commented that he wasn't 
aware that any CAC were on the contest reflector.  CAC members
AA2DU, K3LR, and me read reflector mail regularly, as does KR1R at the 
ARRL contest desk.  From time to time I read complaints, suggestions,
and news that should be copied to the CAC.  In the future, if you
compose a message for cq-contest and want to copy it to the cac, 
just make the Cc address CAC at arrl.org (the adr of the cac relfector) and a
copy will be sent to all of the members who have e-mail capability as
well as to the contest desk. while most contest reflector mail is
read by somebody on cac, addressing mail to cac at arrl.org guarantees that
i and others will read it.  Of course, for formal proposals, a letter
sent to cac c/o arrl is still the best approach.  also, in the near
future, i will be posting a list of the issues that cac has been 
asked to vote on so that you will have an opportunity to comment 
before a final recommendation is made to the arrl awards committee.
73, Walt, W0CP, Chairman, ARRL Contest Advisory Committee

>From Susan M. King (8-695-3688)" <ku2q at vnet.IBM.COM  Wed Jan  5 18:17:17 1994
From: Susan M. King (8-695-3688)" <ku2q at vnet.IBM.COM (Susan M. King (8-695-3688))
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 13:17:17 EST
Subject: CT requests

I am sending this list of requests for CT changes for someone who has
read-only access to this reflector:

--------------- Beginning of Included Message ------------------------

§MSG:FROM: FSTEELE --DALVM3   TO: KU2Q    --KGNVMC            01/05/94 09:42:51
 To: KU2Q    --KGNVMC

 Fant Steele                     (214) 406-7627   (T/L) 752-7627
 Instructor                                      DALVM3(FSTEELE)
 Skill Dynamics
 Subject: K1EA and CT version 9
  Susan, Thanks for posting this.    Fant

   Here are a list of changes I would like to see.

   1) The one thing I would like to see is SLOWER CW.  There are those of
      us that use your program but cannot copy CW very fast. I see that
      you are looking at changes in the CW part anyway so please make it
      slower. We use CT at field day and it would be nice if the
      novice/tec station could use it at 5-7 WPM.

   2) A way to generate a copy of CT that expires after some time period.
      I am a licensed user of CT and at our club's Field Day I use my
      copy.  I am on site most of the time but still worry about someone
      "borrowing" a copy when I'm not looking.  We run a MM with around
      100 people floating around at one time or another.  If I could
      setup a copy that died at the end of the event I wouldn't have to
      worry about anyone getting my copy.

   3) Time zone to UTC conversion.  I have seen several programs that use
      an environmental value to determine the correct UTC from the time of
      day clock.  This would be a nice feature to add. All you have to do
      is SET TZ=CST6CDT for example and the program knows that you are in
      the central time zone 6 hours away from UTC.  I know I can reset
      my computer clock but for the casual contester it's a pain. Also
      under OS/2 I may be running things that need the clock set to the
      correct local time.

    Fant Steele  (FANT at VNET.IBM.COM)


>From Danny Eskenazi <0005720561 at mcimail.com>  Wed Jan  5 18:29:00 1994
From: Danny Eskenazi <0005720561 at mcimail.com> (Danny Eskenazi)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 13:29 EST
Subject: CAC
Message-ID: <83940105182938/0005720561PK1EM at mcimail.com>

Walt: You will find that TheNW Div is also regularly represented on 
the reflector, and I believe that K0HB also is a regular, so indeed we
are nearing a quorum on the reflecetor. How many of the CAC are on the
CAC reflector? Good show on taking input electronically! 73 Danny K7SS

>From Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH at TGV.COM>  Wed Jan  5 20:53:14 1994
From: Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH at TGV.COM> (Trey Garlough)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 12:53:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: netiquette and the reflector
Message-ID: <757803194.313435.GARLOUGH at TGV.COM>

Please take a moment to read and consider what I say in this message.

I have been meaning to make this posting for a long time, but I really
don't care much for the role of net-police.  Many subscribers to this
forum have sent me private messages indicating a desire to improve
the signal-to-noise ratio of what appears in their mailbox.  In
particular, people have asked if I can set up the mailing list so that
it will stifle the "boring stuff" and refelct "only the interesting
messages."  This is not possible without RMM (Read My Mind)
technology, which is not available at this time.

Hint #1:
When I started doing wireless, I was told that the best filter for
copying CW was the one "between your ears."  This bit of wisdom
applies to electronic mail messages as well.

CQ-Contest an "unmoderated" forum, which means I don't screen or
censor any messages.  Therefore each person who posts a message must 
take personal responsibility to ensure that what they say adds some 
value to the forum.  Examples of this are covered in the Frequently 
Asked Questions (FAQ) list.  I am going to review a few of them here.

Hint #2:
> Most answers should go directly to the person who posed the question,
> rather than to the list.

This seems obvious to me, but often this advice is not followed.  

Hint #3:
> Would you pay $0.50 to read the message that you just wrote?

If I were paying $0.50 per message to read this stuff, I would be
really pissed.	Maybe a better way of phrasing this would be "would
you pay $5.00 to *post* the message you just wrote?"  In other words,
is what you have to write so important that you would be willing to pay
$5.00 to make everyone else read it.  Think of messages to individuals 
as being free, but messages to CQ-Contest as costing $5.00 each.

Hint #4:
> Avoid messages that are a complete reprint of someone else's
> message, with nothing but "I agree" or "Me too" added to the bottom --
> not much value there.

Here is an example that incoroporates 2, 3, and 4: "Who else thinks
the change to 36 hours for single op in WPX is lame?"  All responses
should go back to the person who posed the question, *not* to the
list.  If the asker gets an interesting list of responses, he should
post a summary back to the list.

Hint #5:
If you get a private message from me reminding you to follow the forum
guidelines, take the hint.  I have sent message to several people that
said "please do not make XYZ type postings."  Most people have honored 
these requests by not making XYZ postings.  This is great.  However, 
there are a few people who have reacted by posting messages that say 
"I know Trey asked me not make XYZ postings but here is an another XYZ 
posting."  Sigh.  This is not exactly what I was hoping for.  Please,
take the hint.

See you on the net.

--Trey Garlough, WN4KKN/6
  trey at tgv.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list