Fri Mar 25 17:25:30 EST 1994

Steve N2IC wrote some observations on the "single-two" style of operating.
He concluded that the hardware ante has been raised and might discourage

This has always been the case with contesting and with single ops.  To stay
in the top echelons in one's area, the hardware commitments have increased
significantly every decade.  The top-notch single op station of the 1950s
did not cut the mustard in the 60s ... the top-notch 60's station did not
meet the bar in the 70s ... a great 70s station comes up short in the 80s ...
and an 80's style single op station is already lagging behind here in the

Assembling a top-grade single op station requires more hardware (and software)
than ever before.  Fortunately, some things which use to require custom 
construction are now available for routine purchase (e.g., transceiving 
bandpass filters), some costs have come down (in constant dollar terms) --
altho more often the costs have stayed the same and functionality has 
improved (e.g., radios) ... or costs have just gone up (coax! tower hardware! 
rotators!).  It's a big investment and it is getting bigger all the time.

More modest investments do very well, however.  And the recent work on 
stacking tribanders has shown that 90% of the bang of stacked monobanders
can be achieved less expensively.

As the bleeding edge single op and multi-multis continue to push the state
of the art, the benefits do trickle down to others.  Radio and antenna 
performance per constant (inflation-corrected) dollar are way above what
they used to be.

Like Steve, I see no reason to stop "progress" and evolution.  And I certainly
find operating "single-multi" much more interesting and fun than the old 
single-op/one-radio days -- it's a tremendous challenge made possible, in 
many respects, by automations introduced through computer software tools.
It is very rare to be confronted in a contest with a "slow" moment in such
a station.

The financial requirements to build such a 90's station are intimidating (at
least to me!)... but, frankly, the investment in radio/computer hardware is
increasing at a slower rate than the cost for real estate!!  To find a
suitable QTH in a good radio-propagation location, within commuting distance
of one's job, and without restrictive covenants, is becoming more and more
difficult and costly every year around most major metropolitan areas.

It would not surprise me to see more collaborative station construction 
efforts undertaken in these metropolitan areas -- where several people
pool resources to build a top-grade station in a good location which is
then shared.  Certainly, the technology for radio-links to remote controlled
receiver and transmitter sites, each with multiple xmtr/rcvrs, is coming
within reach.  (Sounds like the old radio club days of the depression era,
where many operated at club stations.)  Remote-controlled stations are NOT
yet cookbook items ... but it is feasible!  Yet little progress is being
done in this area by contesters -- because current rules FORBID them!
CQ WW, for example, requires receivers and transmitters to be wire-linked
and on the same property ... hardly permissive to "collaborative stations".

Yet collaborative stations offer a lot to amateur radio.  Not just contesters,
but DXers and other hams would be able to do more with HF, and more easily,
if they could share resources in this way.  It would give an HF alternative
to the many hams who live in neighborhoods were antennas are largely 
prohibited (at least, the kinds of antennas we want to use on HF).

Far from discouraging evolution, I would like to see the freedom to develop
more "new ideas" for contesting stations.  Perhaps CQ and ARRL could revisit
the requirements for wire-linked, on-the-same-property stations.

Remember that once upon a time, multi-multi stations did not exist and were
not provided for in the rules.  Look at all the improvements in station 
engineering and antenna performance that have resulted from competition 
between multi-multis.  I anticipate that such benefits will continue to 
flow and contesting in all operator classes evolves.

-- Eric K3NA

>From Rick Zabrodski <zabrodsk at>  Tue Mar 29 03:26:47 1994
From: Rick Zabrodski <zabrodsk at> (Rick Zabrodski)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 20:26:47 -0700 (MST)
Subject: WE9V / KS9K Scores
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9403282038.A28292-0100000 at ume>

Just remember to keep one hand in your back pocket when working with high 
voltage and the top off!

On Mon, 28 Mar 1994 ka9fox at wrote:

>   > KS9K (op N0BSH)     785 X 443   =  810,690
> This was a 40 meter single band effort.
>   > WE9V (at KS9K)     1674 X 696   = 2,653,152           
> This was a 15 meter single band effort.
> Both efforts break the previous 9-land records.
> 73 Scott KA9FOX
> "I'm too short for QRO"
> I resisted every effort to turn on the rig this weekend... the new YL in my
> life -a FOX!- is requiring more skill, timing and determination than the WPX
> could have possibly needed. Is there some PED trainer for winning over YLs? 
> I guess I've spent too much time running and now I need to search and POUNCE!
>  I guess I should move this to the Dating Reflector.  ;-)

>From Jim Reisert AD1C  28-Mar-1994 2224 <reisert at>  Tue Mar 29 03:21:44 1994
From: Jim Reisert AD1C  28-Mar-1994 2224 <reisert at> (Jim Reisert AD1C 28-Mar-1994 2224)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 94 22:21:44 EST
Subject: CT M/S serial numbers
Message-ID: <9403290321.AA14058 at>

Please take *all* CT issues to the CT-USER mailing list
(CT-USER at  That way K1EA will see them, and non-CT users won't.

73 - Jim AD1C

>From Rick Zabrodski <zabrodsk at>  Tue Mar 29 03:46:23 1994
From: Rick Zabrodski <zabrodsk at> (Rick Zabrodski)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 20:46:23 -0700 (MST)
Subject: drugs and contesting
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9403282056.A28292-0100000 at ume>

Hey, how about the unfair advantage of tolerating more coffee then the 
next guy? How about top ten with/ without caffeine boxes. Of course spot 
urine testing will be required and the top 3 will have to send samples 
with their contest results.  Hmmmmmm, then there is blood doping, 
amphetamines, anabolic steriods......
Dr Rick Zabrodski ve6gk

>From scott at f6.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Scott Lieberman)  Tue Mar 29 00:28:41 1994
From: scott at f6.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Scott Lieberman) (Scott Lieberman)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 94 16:28:41 PST
Subject: 175 mile rule
Message-ID: <18.2D97A7E8 at kennel.FIDONET.ORG>

What about Hawaii?  I think the main islands could be enclosed in a 
175 mile radius circle, but  they would still have a heck of a 
lot of submerged real estate.  Would you give them Japan as 
compensation in the DX contests, since the Japanese own most of Hawaii 
anyway?  :-)
Leave the 175 mile rule the way it is.  It is equally unfair to all 
large clubs, and that is good enough for me!

Scott Lieberman
INTERNET: scott at f6.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG
"The views expressed above are those of Scott Lieberman only."

>From XMSJ29A at (MR JAMES A WHITE)  Tue Mar 29 04:06:48 1994
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 23:06:48 EST
Subject: Florida's Predicament
Message-ID: <013.00519236.XMSJ29A at>

K3ZJ-There is no humor meant in my suggestion-I am serious, as serious as
you can get about DC!

I am well aware of the 20 years ago debates over club territory-and you
know that, Dave.

I am NOT proposing that club territories be by you have
mentioned-K1IU in RI would be pretty lonely, and the Californians would
Kick Butt in SS, oops I forgot half of them can whenever they want to bad
enough and get themselves organized.

Look at the contest results for the past cycle and see how many scores have
been submitted from Florida---I cannot tell you how many people have
thanked me on Sunday afternoons in the SS for SFL - this from what you
refer to as a state with one of the highest ham populations per
mile....there are an awful lot of repeater rangers here, an awful lot good
buddy. Obviously as of January 1st this year our goal is to make Florida a
contesting mover and shaker state. The recent successes of K4XS' (say it
three times fast) show that yes there is a lot of unrealized contest
potential here in the Sunshine State.

Dave is somewhat vehement in his treatment of my suggestion, I suspect that
is because he views it as a by state proposition and his pet project, the
recognition of non-state District of Columbia, could be vulnerable.

I ask for consideration of our proposal to use the entire state of Florida
as a base...if we were after points I would be arguing that the entire
96,000 square miles a 175 mile radius creates be granted us-in a form that
would include the Southern GA/Atlanta area-including the likes of KM9P and
N4RJ...we haven't asked for that though-just something as a compensation
for our unique geography.

"Florida has one of the highest ham populations per mile in the entire
country but Jim wants more". Jim wants his clubs due-Jim wants we can never put together any multi-multis that maritime
mobile in our unused Ocean club territory how about cutting us a break.
We're not asking for 38,000 square miles, just throw in the Florida
Panhandle and the Keys, please....that is all.

I don't want to eliminate geography...those guys who team up and run
multi-multis outta the black hole are deservedly proud...they don't want
you telling them they are second rate because they're not in with W3LPL or
N2RM...fooey. If you eliminate the geographic nature of clubs I wish you
luck in building "Beam Teams" and "Quad Squads"...."yeah no problem I' ll
hop a jet out to you next weekend so we can put up your new yagi-NOT!"

K3WW has seen a humorous opportunity and taken it-wishing for his ultimate
contest territory as long as I have opened the floor for debate. If I were
him I would do same. BUT DAVE, I AM NOT JOKING-if I were I would not have
gone to the trouble of polling our club members on this/written ARRL/and
written the contest community via the reflector. And for sure I would have
posted this on April first anyway.

This is an earnest request. Please treat it appropriately.

Jim, K1ZX
Florida CW Contest Group.......................yes we do operate SSB, too.

>From D. Leeson" <0005543629 at  Tue Mar 29 06:03:00 1994
From: D. Leeson" <0005543629 at (D. Leeson)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 94 01:03 EST
Subject: P40V, HC8A WPX
Message-ID: <52940329060325/0005543629NA4EM at>

Talked tonight to Carl and Rich...Carl had terrible line noise, 5700 Q x
estimated 950 M...Rich had linear malfunction, worked on it until giving
up at 0020z, decided to go QRP, set power with power meter on wrong scale
which gave 1/2 watt, discovered that and corrected it to 5 watts, 3460 Q is
near QRP record.

Dave, W6QHS

>From Danny Eskenazi <0005720561 at>  Tue Mar 29 07:00:00 1994
From: Danny Eskenazi <0005720561 at> (Danny Eskenazi)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 94 02:00 EST
Subject: Finally..a REAL QRP record!
Message-ID: <00940329070000/0005720561PK2EM at>

I've been waitng for this for some years..CONGRATULATIONS are due Rich Smith
N6KT who I understand has broken the WORLD QRP RECORD in WPX from HC8A!!!
He beat a BOGUS record!! the existing VP2 record in QRP was viewed by most
legitimate QRP guys as completely bogus !! It took the likes of the Worlds
best SSB contest op to beat a phoney record ! and Rich deserves a big 
hand!  When the VP2 claimed he had beaten the world record .. there was
alot of talk and signal comparisons done with "real" QRP guys...and it 
was plain as day! It was NOT 5 watts. period. The comments were all gathered
and forwarded the the WPX administrator...who did nothing but print the score
under QRP and awarded the "new record". I think all legitimate 5 watt 
contesters are  breathing a collective sigh of relief to see that one go
out of the books (It was alos done from 2 point land, and would have made Top TeTen in the world HIGH POWER CLASS!!!!!!!!)
CONGRATS RICH! I hope that other "phoney records" will someday leave the
record books as well....I guess it takes a super effort to beat that kind
of score...BUT IT CAN BE DONE!  Thank you N6KT for giving some of a reason
to get back into it and compete, after having lost interest because of 
loose wattmeters.
73 de K7SS  Danny Eskenazi

>From dbr at (David Brian Ritchie)  Tue Mar 29 09:52:46 1994
From: dbr at (David Brian Ritchie) (David Brian Ritchie)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 01:52:46 -0800
Subject: Field Day Record?
Message-ID: <199403290952.BAA11085 at>

I was looking at the FD records the other day and came across the record
(at least I think it is the record) for FD in class 3A.  It was made by K5DX
in 1984 with 3756 qsos, 150 watts.  In 1984 there were a possible 700
bonus points that you could get, so I figure the highest score you could
get with 3756 Qs (all CW of course) and 700 bonus points would be (at the
150 watt level) 3756x2x2+700=15,724.  The record, however, is printed as
17,194 points.  Am I missing something?  Is this a typo?  If you can help,
please let me know.  Thanks.  N6DLU.

>From rmoore at> (Tech Asst. Spec.  Mon Mar 28 14:29:51 1994
From: rmoore at> (Tech Asst. Spec. (rmoore at> (Tech Asst. Spec.)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 94 9:29:51 EST
Subject: WPX Score WM2H
Message-ID: <YOh8+qniZhS at>

Score of WM2H WPX SSB
                        QSO's    Prefixes
		160	  0         0
		 80     191        92
		 40     191       108
		 20     946       277
		 15   1,321       288
		 10      85        28
	       Total  2,734       793   
		Score   6,436,781

                       73,  Bob  N2RM

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list