Regional Coverage

km9p at km9p at
Mon Jan 24 18:33:35 EST 1994

I think it would be best if we try not to confuse the issue of regional
coverage.  Let's start with breakdowns for the categories that show a high
level of QUALITY participation.  Maybe in two years they can expand on the
boxes if participation warrants the coverage. The scores broken out and
posted to the reflector for the past years DX contest were a perfect
representation of the serious efforts in zone 3, 4 & 5.

I think when they asked for input on how to break it out, they should have
asked:  "If we were to devide the country into 3 areas, where would we draw
the lines?"

That is specific and doesn't dilute the discussion into a thousand other


Bill Fisher, KM9P       KM9P at AOL.COM

>From Skelton, Tom" <TSkelton at engineer.clemsonsc.NCR.COM  Tue Jan 25 16:59:00 1994
From: Skelton, Tom" <TSkelton at engineer.clemsonsc.NCR.COM (Skelton, Tom)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 08:59:00 PST
Subject: FW: NCJ editorial, etc. (fwd)
Message-ID: <2D454FC4 at admin.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM>


It seems to me the intent here is to operate barefoot... I'd suggest we not
draw the power line at too restrictive a level for the low power category.
drive the $2300 one ;)

73, Ron - W0OSK

Wellllll....if the intent were only to operate barefoot, I'd like to have my
venerable Yaesu FTdx560 transceiver back as a 'run radio.'  It had no
problem generating a healthy 300 watts output, almost an S unit more
than my TS690s.

73, tom WB4IUX

>From Skelton, Tom" <TSkelton at engineer.clemsonsc.NCR.COM  Tue Jan 25 17:09:00 1994
From: Skelton, Tom" <TSkelton at engineer.clemsonsc.NCR.COM (Skelton, Tom)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 09:09:00 PST
Subject: FW: What the West REALLY Needs
Message-ID: <2D45523E at admin.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM>

 You know, in the 70's and early 80's JA participation was so good that a 
 ten finish was in the realm of possibility for a W5 or farther west in just
 about every work-the-world contest.  Much of what we are hearing is perhaps
 really just a lament over the balkanization of Europe (more and more 
 multipliers) and the loss of the big JA runs.

 David K. McCarty, K5GN
 dkmc at

Thanks David...when I was a far more active contester back in the 70's, I
thought there were tons of JA's EVEN for an east coast station.  That is
why I have been somewhat perplexed by the discussion threads on
lesser qso totals for west coast stations.  I even asked someone a few
months ago if the number of JA contesters had diminished.  I don't have
my log with me, but I remember an ARRL DX contest in the early 70's
in which I had about 300 JA's on 10 meters with just a 2 element quad.

I think it would interesting for some of you statistics_minded_west_of_the
Mississippi_ contesters to quantify this decline since the 70's.  Also, if
one of our JA contesters could comment from your end on the relative
numbers of contesters versus 20 years ago.  Is there a lifestyle change
in Japan to which we could attribute this??? Thanks

73, Tom WB4IUX

>From Edward Parish <parish at Think.COM>  Tue Jan 25 15:41:49 1994
From: Edward Parish <parish at Think.COM> (Edward Parish)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 10:41:49 EST
Subject: DSP Filters
Message-ID: <9401251541.AA06696 at>

I am considering purchasing a DSP filter for contest use.  I would like to
know if anyone out there in contest land has used one in serious
contesting.  Reply to me (parish at and I will summarize and repost
to the net if I get answers.  Questions that I would like to know are:

   o features essential to contesting vs. rag chewing or dx'ing
   o brand/model preference in contesting vs. rag chewing or dx'ing
   o ease of use or readjustment (or selection of program) during high q
     rates/high close in interference
   o ssb performance vs. cw performance (My use would be predominantly SSB
     at this time)
   o weak signal performance
   o built in (e.g. TS-850) vs. external connection via speaker (is there
     any difference?) 
   o cost (sorta secondary to performance)

   o o o plus any other comments


>From Jay Kesterson K0GU x6826 <jayk at>  Tue Jan 25 16:18:56 1994
From: Jay Kesterson K0GU x6826 <jayk at> (Jay Kesterson K0GU x6826)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 9:18:56 MST
Subject: JA rates from CO
Message-ID: <9401251618.AA02262 at>

HOUR    K0RF/HR     W0UN/HR    Here are some 15m JA rate samples from CO.
                               These are from the JA opening hours and are
  0      139         170       likely about 95% JAs + a few BYs, BVs etc.
  1      119         157       These are from the 93 ARRL SSB. I was the OP
  2      100          99       at K0RF using a 6 el monobander, 42' boom
  3       31          50       at 80'. W0UA was at W0UN with a pair of 8 el
                               yagis with 60' booms and a 28 el stack.
 22       71          84
 23       85         100       With the exception of the first two hours of
  0       97         113       of the test the JA rate is similar to the EU
  1       91         119       rate.
  2       72         107

 22       28          16       Band very bad Sunday afternoon and its
 23       31          38       Monday morning in Japan.

73, Jay K0GU                 jayk at

>From mwilson at (Mark Wilson)  Tue Jan 25 15:43:03 1994
From: mwilson at (Mark Wilson) (Mark Wilson)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 10:43:03 EST
Subject: Low Power categories
Message-ID: <2133 at mw>

The 150-W output limit for the low-power categories dates from
1983. On August 29 of that year, the FCC began defining amateur 
power limits in terms of PEP output, rather than PEP or dc input.

We revised the contest rules to define the power categories in
terms of output power. The full-power category changed from 
2000 W PEP (SSB) and 1000 W dc (CW) input to 1500 W output to
make the contest rules consistent with the FCC rules.

Until then, low power had long been defined as 200 W PEP (SSB) and
100 W dc (CW) input. There was some discussion of the appropriate 
power level -- 100 or 150 W output. The *intent* of the rule was 
to allow barefoot transceiver operation with the rigs on the 
market at the time (FT-102, 150 W; TS-930, 120 W; etc). This is
noted on page 96 of October 1983 QST, in the SS rules:
"Also note that the low-power category is now defined as 150-W
output, which should accommodate most of the transmitters and 
transceivers currently on the market."

It was not the intent of this rule to encourage someone to turn
on their Alpha to make up the last few watts. 

Mark Wilson, AA2Z
mwilson at

>From milewski at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (Steve Milewski)  Tue Jan 25 16:53:07 1994
From: milewski at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (Steve Milewski) (Steve Milewski)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 08:53:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: NCJ editorial, etc. (fwd)

.  I feel that the
>> power limit for this category should be 100W, not 150W as it
>> presently is (or is my memory failing again?).  Almost all
>> commercial transceivers only output 100W, the execptions being
>> the 2 top of the line models in the $4000 class.
>  ... stuff deleted

>> Ed Gilbert, WA2SRQ
>> eyg at
>Actually, there are probably a lot of tube PA type rigs still in use which
>output more than 100 watts. (stuff deleted) I'd suggest we not
>draw the power line at too restrictive a level for the low power category. The
>ones it might hit the hardest could be the new contester... could be a lot of
>such folks are somewhat new to the hobby and are likely to be using the older
>rigs.... then there are those of us who refuse to pay more for a radio then
>their last car purchase
>73, Ron - W0OSK

The same holds true for the elitist idea of -requiring- disk submission of
contest results in order to be considered a contester.

For some of us it takes long enough to save up and upgrade to a newer radio
that'll afford some of the advantages that the newer technology offers. To
require a computer purchase and then the appropriate software in order to
play the game is extremely exclusionary.

Granted, the big guns with an entire shack full of the latest toys and a
skyfull of aluminum will always take the world top ten. So what's the big
deal? Just because someone is not favored to win doesn't mean the game
can't be fun.

Contesting with paper logs and my old FT101 and a ground mounted vertical
was tremendous fun. I never made top ten, never expected to (It was a great
surprise when ARRL sent a DX contest certificate for #1 low power CW in
Oregon), I felt that I was IN THE CONTEST though.

To change the requirements, I believe, would be a set-back to the
introduction of new contesters to the sport.

Steve Milewski
milewski at

>From len at (Leonard Kay)  Tue Jan 25 17:04:46 1994
From: len at (Leonard Kay) (Leonard Kay)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 12:04:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NCJ editorial, etc. (fwd)
Message-ID: <9401251704.AA00664 at>

>>One popular RTTY contest software package is RTTY by WF1B. I good package,
>>and I can't really imagine doing a serious effort without it. But the 
>>package does not output an ARRL acceptable log format.


>>   4) write WF1B a letter pleading for an output format that allows
>>      me to become a competitor, but in the mean time be satisfied 
>>      with participant status

>>Granted that may readers of this reflector are computer literate and many can
>>write a mean program, do all registered owners of CT, NA, LOG and RTTY
>>fit this profile? I don't think so. Many of these users would be converted
>>to participant. This I can not support.
>>Jim, WA6SDM
>>jholly at

You are correct, Jim, but WF1B's *business* is writing a mean program. And writing
a function to take the database info and churn out a correctly formatted output is
not a big deal. So idea #4 above is the most direct.

Supply and demand works here. I support the idea of *requiring* computer-submitted
logs. If WF1B (or anyone else's) code can't meet the req, then they will not sell
any copies.

73, Len KB2R

>From John W. Brosnahan" <broz at  Tue Jan 25 18:16:56 1994
From: John W. Brosnahan" <broz at (John W. Brosnahan)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 11:16:56 -0700
Subject: Recognition of Outstanding Contest Efforts
Message-ID: <199401251816.AA01773 at>

RE: K5GN's tongue-in-cheek comment about making higher scores in the west 
if Japan could be broken up into many countries as well as needing to have 
a lot of low power ops from other asian and pacific countries.  
If the situation were reversed and the top 10 box was filled mostly with 
western US stations, I would be fighting equally hard for regional 
recognition in order to better reflect outstanding efforts made from the 
underpriveleged east coast.
I don't mean this comment to be offensive to anyone, but it seems that
having the northeastern operators saying that there is nothing wrong
with contest reporting and that western stations are just a bunch of whiners, 
is like having a group of whites in the 60s say "I don't know what you blacks 
are complaining about, everything seems fine to us."
Comments about how much difference in propagation there can be between the
1, 2, and 3 call areas, and even within a single call area with separations
of only 100 or 200 miles, only reinforce the need for regional recognition
for stations that are separated by 2000 to 3000 miles.  And clearly,
separation north and south can be as important a factor as separation
east and west.   But regionalization of scores can be taken too far.  There
is no joy in winning the region if the region is so small that you are the 
only entry.
If regional reporting of scores is assumed to be important, a case can be
made for anywhere from 2 to 8 regions.  The lower limit of 2 would break
W/VE into a western and an eastern region.  The upper limit of 8 regions 
would allow for 4 east to west regions that would be divided into a northern 
half and a southern half.  Any more than 8 would be entirely too unwieldy and
could never be accomodated in the limited space in the magazines.  If we 
assume that there is no more space available, maybe the debate should be
about innovative formatting that would allow more info in the same sized
boxes and/or just how many regions can be accomodated in the current
space.  A review of the lastest contest reports should show if there is
any more white space on the pages that might be available.  (Personally, I 
would hate to lose the pictures over this because I enjoy seeing what the 
competition looks like (both ops and stations).)    In addition to the page 
limit, there is the equally important limit of how much extra work the 
checkers/editors are able to do that must be considered in any proposal.  
Again, I have no interest in changing how the contest is run or scored.  
And I don't feel that breaking the entries into classes has much merit  
(ie competitors and entrants, or whatever)  If you are a competitor
you'll have a big score and everyone will know you are competitive.  If
you are a more casual entrant your score won't be as big and everyone will 
know that you have a more modest station and/or did not make the committment 
to work the full contest period.
I guess the importance of an issue can be measured by how long it hangs
around on the reflector, and this one doesn't seem to want to go away.
I have only two motivations driving my interest in this matter.  1)  To 
better highlight outstanding efforts from whatever region of the world, and 
2) to encourage more activity from regions that seems to be losing interest,
possibly due to the lack of recognition.  
Personally, I will not be satisfied with just winning a region, and I will 
continue to strive for top US scores by trying to overcome the propagation 
handicaps through antenna engineering.   The US records on both 10M phone and 
10M CW in the ARRL DX contest (W0UA, op) will remain the highlights of my 
recent contest efforts.  The only effort exceeding this was the 73 qsos made 
in the 1959 Sweepstakes as a Novice/Multi/Single entry from my station 
(KN0UTX).  While there was no recognition of this effort, it did get my CW
speed up to where I could pass the general, so I would never belittle the
efforts made by anyone who is trying to improve his operating skills, even
if the score is very modest.
73  John   W0UN     broz at

>From Danny Eskenazi <0005720561 at>  Tue Jan 25 17:13:00 1994
From: Danny Eskenazi <0005720561 at> (Danny Eskenazi)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 12:13 EST
Subject: Technical Question from QCAO
Message-ID: <83940125171338/0005720561PK1EM at>

As GEP (Grand Exhausted Poobah) of the QCAO (Quarter Century Appliance
Operators) I am excused when asking any questions of a technical nature.
Our club motto: I dont know how it works, I JUST WANT TO OPERATE!"
Please excuse my non-thread-contest question, but I could think of no
more qualified group than yourselves to ask. I do not have cable and wanted
to know if anyone is using a small dish for TV reception, and how they
work out etc. I am a complete novice on this subject. Thanks de K7SS Danny.

>From kd2kq at (Steve Woodard)  Tue Jan 25 21:47:38 1994
From: kd2kq at (Steve Woodard) (Steve Woodard)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 16:47:38 est
Subject: VHF Sweepstakes Score
Message-ID: <9401252147.AA09281 at>

Preliminary score (not even one dupe pass yet) for N2WK multi  462K
11 bands, 7 ops  band breakdown and official "claimed score" after
Wayne is happy with the dupe check. . .

73  Steve  KD2KQ

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list