barry at barry at
Fri Jan 21 01:08:31 EST 1994

The following was submitted to NCJ:

Dear NCJ:

Mark, WA6OTU, presented some interesting thoughts and alternatives
regarding the ARRL DX Contest.  I would like to comment on some of his
ideas. He begins discussing how most changes previously presented were
self-serving, yet his proposals regarding the contest "will elevate
its status from that of a poor second to the CQ World Wide DX Contest..."
In my opinion, the difference relates to the fact that the world is
restricted to working W/VEs.  For similar reasons the Worked All Europe
and the All Asia contests do not generate the activity of the CQWW.

While he may not think so, Mark's regional awards and proposed competitor
vs. participant appear self-serving to me.  Apparently, he feels
handicapped operating from the west coast, and regional recognition
will certainly benefit him.  He must feel that his logs are "cleaner"
than those of his competitors, and additional log scrutiny will also
benefit him.
Regional competition does not offer a fair alternative.  In his
editorial, he groups 1, 2, and 3-land together.  As one who presently
resides near Philadelphia, and previously lived in Pittsburgh and
coastal New Hampshire, I can assure Mark that these three locations
present significantly different conditions in the contest.  It will be
very difficult to fairly divide the U.S. into five regions.  For example,
suppose we have a W3 in Pittsburgh competing with a W1 in Maine, and a
W8 only 30 miles west of Pittsburgh competing with 8s, 9s, and 0s.  Is
this fair?

Regarding the logging/checking issue, I don't think there is a need for
the competitors vs. participants.  It would be quite an accomplishment
to produce a competitive score using hand logging and duping, and anyone
doing it deserves the recognition.  If computer logging is done, then a
disk ( or electronic transfer) should be required.  Could someone log by
computer then copy everything over by hand to avoid scrutiny? Conceivably.
But, let's take a step back and look at what we're discussing.  This is
a hobby.  The prizes are certificates and plaques.  The recognition of a
top score is short lived as there is a new contest every year and many
contests every year.  There are no cash prizes.  If someone wants to cheat,
he's only cheating himself and will find a way regardless of the rules.

Single op assisted.  Why not call it multi-single? Because it's not!
In reviewing the scores, most of the Top Ten single op assisted scores
are lower than the single op scores, and much lower than the multi-single
scores.  It makes more sense to combine the single op assisted and single
op categories.  I've often wondered how many single ops have an unconnected
packet station monitoring anyway.

In summary, Mark's initial statement that proposed changes in the contest
rules are self-serving is correct.  What self-serving rule change do I
want?  a 24 hour category.  "Operate IARU" says Mark.  My reply - Mark,
operate CQWW!

>From MSgt Bob Smith/SCSMH <smithb at>  Fri Jan 21 02:27:31 1994
From: MSgt Bob Smith/SCSMH <smithb at> (MSgt Bob Smith/SCSMH)
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 94 20:27:31 CST
Subject: Contest date conflicts
Message-ID: <9401210227.AA26630 at>

Neat concept.  Can the CQ WW SSB be moved to accomodate 
HAMFEST Minnesota?  I have to choose between driving 700
miles to the only reasonably sized hamfest in this region
or operating this contest. 


This is a joke, no flames please.  I will take flicked matches.

73 Bob

>From n7stu at (Robert Brown)  Fri Jan 21 05:49:07 1994
From: n7stu at (Robert Brown) (Robert Brown)
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 94 21:49:07 PST
Subject: Did you know? [June VHF contest]
Message-ID: <k51ggc1w165w at>

I can see this easily becoming a two weekend contest this year.  First 
weekend (the new date) for those connected to the information stream and 
the second weekend on the REGULAR date for those that aren't league 
members or live overseas where word spreads slowly.  Another option is 
that people will be so annoyed with the date change that they will not 
even bother to send in a log in protest.  Just how many VHFers were so 
concerned that the convention was the same weekend as the contest?  Given 
the choice between the best VHF contest of the year and a division 
convention on the same weekend, I would choose the contest without a 
moments hesitation.
73, Robert N7STU/YB2ARO

n7stu at (Robert Brown)
The Tech BBS (408) 279-7199 San Jose, CA

>From Tony Brock-Fisher <fisher at>  Fri Jan 21 14:17:15 1994
From: Tony Brock-Fisher <fisher at> (Tony Brock-Fisher)
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 09:17:15 -0500
Subject: Rig Survey Results
Message-ID: <9401211417.AA01492 at>

Well, I certainly got a lot of responses to my Rig Survey question. 18, in 
fact. I have to admit that the question was not well thought out and the
main conclusion is pretty obvious. The FT1000 can't receive while it's
CQing, so it wasn't an 'apples and apples' comparison. Once you get past
that, there were some pretty interesting replies:

6 responses:
- Backup Transmitter a plus  

2 responses:

- FT1000 has 'better' receiver 
- PBT in FT1000 is better than IF shift in 765 
   (so do the mod ! )
- All the controls on one panel a plus for FT1000 
- FT1000 better/narrower SSB filters

With 1 response each, features in favor of the 765:

-Tuner in line for Rx cuts interstation QRM
-RX weak CW/quiet band
-Speech processor (better)
-Computer interface

 ... and in favor of FT-1000

-Noise blanker (better)
-Audio Peaking Filter

Radio brands are like religions. Several responses were extremely brand-
allegiant.  Others espoused rigs and brands not mentioned
in the original question.

Thanks to all who took the time to respond.

-Tony, K1KP

>From n2ic at (Steven M London +1 303 538 4763)  Fri Jan 21 14:32:03 1994
From: n2ic at (Steven M London +1 303 538 4763) (Steven M London +1 303 538 4763)
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 07:32:03 MST
Subject: Regional Competition
Message-ID: <9401211432.AA02705 at>

W2UP says ...

Regional competition does not offer a fair alternative....(Several examples
stated). It will be very difficult to fairly divide the U.S. into five


Of course Maine presents "significantly different conditions" than Western PA.
However, based upon the recent scores of K3LR and K3TUP, those "different"
conditions are not always negative.
The dividing lines between regions have to be drawn somewhere.
So, what do you suggest Barry ?  Leave everything the way it is ?
Clearly, the current system provides a disincentive to all-band efforts for
those of us west of the eastern time zone.  You bash on WA6OTU for his
"self-serving" proposal.  I suggest that leaving the results listing the way
it is a self-serving to you, and the current east coast-dominated
perennial top-10 competitors.

Having regional listings based on time zone isn't perfect, but it goes a
long way towards providing recognition for those of us out west.

It's too bad your letter-to-the-editor has nothing constructive to offer.

Steve, N2IC/0

>From Rus Healy <0006147675 at>  Fri Jan 21 14:44:00 1994
From: Rus Healy <0006147675 at> (Rus Healy)
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 09:44 EST
Subject: June VHF QSO Party flap
Message-ID: <12940121144421/0006147675NA3EM at>

For those who may not know, Joel Harrison, WB5IGF, who is accused
of singlehandedly influencing the June VHF QSO Party date this year,
is an elected division director of the League.

Whether Joel directly influenced the date of the contest is an issue
I will not address--I've heard nothing to that effect from any source
I consider reliable on this subject, but I haven't asked, either--there
is no doubt that division directors have *incredible* influence on what
happens in League affairs, both minor and major. That's what we elect
them to do.

--73, Rus

>From aj6t at (Walter Miller)  Fri Jan 21 08:04:40 1994
From: aj6t at (Walter Miller) (Walter Miller)
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 00:04:40 PST
Subject: Want VHF contest skeds/QSOs
Message-ID: <ge8ggc1w165w at>

I am looking for VHF skeds and QSOs in this weekend's contest.
Call AJ6T on the HF liason frequencies (14.345 and 28.885
daytime, 3.818 Saturday evening).  Especially looking for meteor
scatter skeds on 6 meters 1300-1600 UTC Sunday morning.  I will
be CQing mostly on 50.135, 144.210, 223.5 FM, 432.100, and 1296.1
MHz.  Also 2m FM simplex on 146.49, 146.54 and 147.55 MHz.
73, Walt  AJ6T   CM87  (408) 354-5828

aj6t at (Walter Miller)
The Tech BBS (408) 279-7199 San Jose, CA

>From dcurtis at (Dave Curtis)  Fri Jan 21 17:51:25 1994
From: dcurtis at (Dave Curtis) (Dave Curtis)
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 09:51:25 PST
Subject: VHF: South Bay Rover
Message-ID: <9401211751.AA07428 at>

This will be my first VHF contest effort, ever.  I will be roving 
south bay grids on 50/144/432.  Listen for NG0X/R, and be gentle,
it's my first time.

73, Dave NG0X

>From Jim Hollenback <jholly at>  Fri Jan 21 18:51:58 1994
From: Jim Hollenback <jholly at> (Jim Hollenback)
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 10:51:58 PST
Subject: NAQP results
Message-ID: <9401211852.AA08914 at>

                       North Americal Qso Party
                           SSB January 1994

      Call: WA6SDM                   Country:  
      Mode: SSB                      Category: Single Operator


      160        0        0        0
       80        0        0        0
       40       19       19        8
       20      100      100       42 
       15      118      118       39
       10      119      119       28

     Totals    356      356      117

               Score:  43,076

Power Output: 100_ watts     Hours of operation: _7.5_

Equipment Description:

Ten-Tec Paragon, TA-33 @ 40 foot, HF2V

First time I operated this contest...had lots of fun.

73, Jim

>From blunt at (Billy Lunt KR1R)  Fri Jan 21 18:43:23 1994
From: blunt at (Billy Lunt KR1R) (Billy Lunt KR1R)
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 13:43:23 EST
Subject: June VHF Contest
Message-ID: <5534 at bl>

Hi Mike,

I'm afraid your un-named "reliable sources" aren't that
reliable. I don't know who they are, nor care to, but they
obviously don't know the facts.

In July, 1993, at the Central States VHF Society Conference
in Oklahoma City, I was approached by several of their board
members and asked if I would discuss the possibility of
moving the June contest weekend at the open business meeting
because of the conflict with the ARRL National Convention in
Dallas.  The Minutes of the 5:00 PM July 30 meeting indicate

At the open meeting on July 31, 1993, then President Joe
Lynch, N6CL, called on me to speak to the group on what
possibly could be done to avoid a conflict between the ARRL
National Convention and the June VHF Contest. The Minutes
clearly state that, based on the CSVHF Society request, the
contest MAY be moved.

I know you were at the conference, Mike, but don't remember
if you were in the open business meeting. There was a very
large group there, several from the northeast, and NO ONE

You're quick to incorrectly accuse me of "bragging" about the
change on the 75 meter VHF net, but you seem to forget that I
made an announcement on that same net of a possible change
also, after CSVHF, long before it was done. We were very open
about the possible change within the VHF community.

I don't believe that moving the contest one week will provide
"much poorer time for propagation". We know that the
conditions are just as good. Besides, we usually receive
several comments about how the conditions were better the
week before!

I'm not on InterNet, nor do I have plans to be. I would like
to request that in the future, should you choose to accuse me
of something, that you not do so behind my back. Please drop
me a copy and I'll be more than happy to discuss the matter
with you. My address and phone number are on page 8 of QST,
and I am usually on the Monday night 75 meter VHF net.

Personally, the last time a National Convention fell on the
June contest weekend, I stayed home and participated in the
contest without any concern or regret.



>From gjk at (Gerald J Kersus)  Fri Jan 21 19:15:10 1994
From: gjk at (Gerald J Kersus) (Gerald J Kersus)
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 14:15:10 EST
Subject: Regional Competition
Message-ID: <9401211915.AA09999 at>

You non-east coast people!  I really don't think that any of the discussed
"regionalization" is totally fair.  There will always be problems unless
you make the regions so small that they become meaningless.  The proposed
time zone region covers just too much area, both north-south and
east-west.  OH and MI are in Eastern Time zone with NH, MA, NJ & MD. It
isn't really fair to lump those areas together to single out achievements.
The same is true for WI and TX in the Central time zone.  CQ zones are
no better for the same reasons.  Even reporting by states could be unfair 
to people in states like NY, PA and probably others.

What people are complaining about is the lack of recognition for good and
even outstanding efforts that, because of geographic limitations, don't get
recognized in the "Top-5" or "Top-10" boxes.  

Maybe the only "fair" thing to do in reporting contest results is to NOT
separately list the Top 10,  Top 5 per Band, etc.  The Top 10 will figure
out who they are anyways.  This way, the geographically-impaired (how's
that for Political Correctness?) won't feel ignored.  (This approach 
would certainly be consistent with other precedents in our society for
dropping special treatment or recognition so as to not slight the
disadvantaged members of society.)

Of course, some (like N2IC/0) may accuse my proposal to eliminate the
Top-10 boxes to be self-serving since I never have (and probably never
will) be listed in the Top 10 of SS, ARRL DX or CQWW.

Gerry Kersus, W1GD

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list