WQ5L (little pistol) score
Ray Rocker
rrrocker at rock.b11.ingr.com
Tue Mar 29 15:11:50 EST 1994
Call used: WQ5L (No /4! Thanx to all who responded to my question)
Location: Alabama, USA
Hours: 23
Category: Single op, all band, not-really-high power, no towers or beams
Band QSOs Points
------------------------
80 48 36
40 44 170
20 233 368
15 170 420
10 49 128
------------------------
TOTAL 544 1122 x 337 prefixes = 378,114
Were LA/SM/OH in a propagational black hole? I didn't even HEAR one.
Was able to get into rest of Europe nicely on 15m and 20m both days.
Saturday was better for 20m and Sunday better for 15m.
Can't say the same for JA though. Almost nothing there. I'm curious to
see how many JAs the 4-land big guns got. Wanted VS6WO for a new country
but of course I never heard them. :(
10m was only open to Latin America, but oh, what fun! Don't think I've ever
heard so many LUs, and so strong, even the QRPers. Propagation must have
favored me big time, as I didn't sit parked in any pileups for long.
The "Thunderstorms From Hell" that you may have seen the aftermath of on the
national news ruined 80m Saturday night, and distracted me all day Sunday,
always forcing QRT when the DX was coming in (Murphy KNOWS lightning).
Plus the 2-meter weather emergency net was competing for my attention.
-- ray // WQ5L // hoping all those VEs and KH6s and KL7s get on for SS
rrrocker at rock.b11.ingr.com
>From R.SCHREIBMAIER" <bob at mtdcr.att.com Tue Mar 29 21:31:44 1994
From: R.SCHREIBMAIER" <bob at mtdcr.att.com (R.SCHREIBMAIER)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 16:31:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: WARC Bands on Field Day?
Have any of you used the WARC bands on Field Day? What's
the consensus -- is it worthwhile to try them, or a waste
of time?
73,
Bob K2PH
p.s. Yes, Gerry, Field Day IS a contest!
--
---------------------------------------------------------
| Bob Schreibmaier | UUCP: att!mtdcr!bob |
| AT&T Bell Laboratories | INTERNET: bob at mtdcr.att.com |
| 200 Laurel Avenue | Telephone: 908-957-2591 |
| Middletown, NJ 07747 | FAX: 908-957-7105 |
---------------------------------------------------------
>From ken.silverman at atlas.ccmail.PacTel.COM (ken silverman) Tue Mar 29 22:45:21 1994
From: ken.silverman at atlas.ccmail.PacTel.COM (ken silverman) (ken silverman)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 94 14:45:21 PST
Subject: WM2C WPX Score
Message-ID: <9402297649.AA764981121 at atlas.ccmail.pactel.com>
WM2C (@ K6KM) 20m Single Band Entry
QTH: California
Score: 1525-Q, 628-M, 1,562,464-Points
Equipment: 5 ele @ 75', 3 ele @ 50', TS950SDX, Alpha 87A
Still havent cleaned out bad pfx's, so score will change a bit. Interesting to
notice the difference between this weekend, as compared to the ARRL DX SSB
contest where I also did a 20m single band entry. Propagation was fairly
comparable, but activity levels were very different. Propagation to EU was
pretty good, but relatively few callers. Best EU rates were to Eastern EU
around 0400Z both nights (same as ARRL weekend). Sunday rates worse than SS
rates on Sunday... read the new CQ, did interference testing between bands,
took a hike (one of the nicest weekends this year), and dozed a bit.
>From David O. Hachadorian" <0006471356 at mcimail.com Wed Mar 30 01:00:00 1994
From: David O. Hachadorian" <0006471356 at mcimail.com (David O. Hachadorian)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 94 20:00 EST
Subject: single/multi
Message-ID: <94940330010049/0006471356PK3EM at mcimail.com>
Why don't we all save ourselves a lot of trouble and outlaw single/multi, or
at least the practice of calling CQ on one frequency while involved in a QSO
on another frequency? I think single/multi stacks up as follows:
On the downside:
* Cost of additional radio, amplifier, and antennas.
* Additional station complexity, in a manner that does not contribute
to non-contest mainstream operating, technology or operator skills.
* Additional spectrum utilization, since while one frequency is
occupied with a QSO, another is occupied with an automated CQ.
* Additional handicap to stations with limited real estate, since
physical separation between antennas enhances the ability to receive
on one band while transmitting 1500 Watts on another.
* Discouragement to middle-level contestors who sometimes compete quite
successfully with relatively simple setups, but really don't take it
seriously enough to go to the extremes of single/multi.
On the upside:
* More fun? I doubt it. It's more like hard, nerve-wracking work.
* Higher score? Yes, for the relatively small percentage of contest
participants who are willing and able to make the required
investment. BUT, as more and more people are forced to use these
methods, the scoring advantage will be lost. Why don't we just kill
it now and spare ourselves the agony?
Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
k6ll at mcimail.com
>From Robert A. Wilson" <n6tv at VNET.IBM.COM Wed Mar 30 02:05:20 1994
From: Robert A. Wilson" <n6tv at VNET.IBM.COM (Robert A. Wilson)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 94 18:05:20 PST
Subject: Single-multi - leave it alone
K6LL writes:
> On the downside:
> * Additional station complexity, in a manner that does not
> contribute to non-contest mainstream operating, technology
> or operator skills.
Having a single-multi station makes mainstream operating such as
DXing and checking for propagation openings on "dead" bands much
more fun. It contributes to advances in bandpass filter technology.
And it certainly makes you a better operator should an emergency
arise that requires you to be on two bands at once, perhaps serving
as a relay. It also gives you instant access to a backup rig should
one fail.
> * Additional handicap to stations with limited real estate, since
> physical separation between antennas enhances the ability to receive
> on one band while transmitting 1500 Watts on another.
I have one tower on limited real estate. All antennas are stacked
within 14' of each other vertically. With good ICE bandpass filters,
I am able to operate on most band combinations simultaneously. It's
not perfect but it works pretty well. Adding a second radio with
filters was the only way I could physically improve my station. The
tower and the lot just wouldn't support anything more than I already
had. If two-rig single ops were banned, I never would have made these
improvements.
C'mon Dave, get on the bandwagon. Yes it is nerve wracking at first
but as you get better at it makes contesting more fun, and less boring.
Let's do a survey. How many of the Top 10 Sweepstakes finishers *aren't*
using more than one rig? I bet the number is very low, and getting lower.
73,
Bob, N6TV
>From geoiii at bga.com (George Fremin III - WB5VZL) Wed Mar 30 03:42:12 1994
From: geoiii at bga.com (George Fremin III - WB5VZL) (george fremin iii)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 21:42:12 -0600 (CST)
Subject: single/multi
Message-ID: <199403300342.AA12604 at zoom.bga.com>
David O. Hachadorian writes: K6LL
: * Additional station complexity, in a manner that does not contribute
: to non-contest mainstream operating, technology or operator skills.
i dont agree - i think that using more than one rig is even more
"useful" outside of a contest. listening to a net or pile up or
chatting with the guys - while at the same time tuning the bands
or listeing to a pile up or wwv for thaa matter.
it does improve operator skills - try it sometime.
: * Additional spectrum utilization, since while one frequency is
: occupied with a QSO, another is occupied with an automated CQ.
eys - it makes better use of the spectrum - instead of *two* automated
cqs you have one cq and one *contact* going on.
: * Additional handicap to stations with limited real estate, since
: physical separation between antennas enhances the ability to receive
: on one band while transmitting 1500 Watts on another.
this is not really true - using ICE bandpass filters i can use
the 10 and 15 yagis on the same mast at 6 ft spacing just fine.
this is also true for the 160/80 dipole , 40m yagi, 20m yagi
on the other tower. works fine.
at 6d2x we did a multi/multi with two towers:
kt34xa, 40-2cd, 80/160 dipole on one and a a4, 80m dipole, 40m dipole on
the other - no problems. the two towers are less than a 100' apart.
: On the upside:
:
: * More fun? I doubt it. It's more like hard, nerve-wracking work.
it *is* more fun - i dont want to do a contest with just one rig
again - there is just *so* much time that is wasted without the
other radio - it keeps me intrested! you have to call alot of CQs
to win a contest - this way i can have something to do while calling CQ.
besides - now everryone stands to make more qsos - as i am more
likely to work someone - while i am tuning. a good example of
this is - i know that there have been years that we have
both made the top ten in ss phone yet never worked eachother -
well now we will *always* work eachother - i will be tuning for you.
:
: * Higher score? Yes, for the relatively small percentage of contest
: participants who are willing and able to make the required
: investment. BUT, as more and more people are forced to use these
: methods, the scoring advantage will be lost. Why don't we just kill
: it now and spare ourselves the agony?
yep - we should get rid of computer logging too - as it adds cost.
and voice keyers and cw keyers, and ft1000s and amps and .......
--
George Fremin III
Austin, Texas C.K.U.
WB5VZL
512/416-0140
geoiii at bga.com
>From tim.ellam at logical.cuc.ab.ca (Tim Ellam) Tue Mar 29 21:22:00 1994
From: tim.ellam at logical.cuc.ab.ca (Tim Ellam) (Tim Ellam)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 94 16:22:00 -0500
Subject: Black Abyss
Message-ID: <5665.1000.uupcb at logical.cuc.ab.ca>
KL7Y is right when he says propagation from Alaska is far worse than the
infamous black hole. Its even worse from VE8, VE6 and VE5 given the lack
of an natural ground as well as other quirks(At least the VE7ZZZ group
have a clear shot to JA)
Believe me there are times when I envy the stations in W8 and W9!!
Tim VE6SH
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Logical Solutions Computer Systems Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada |
| Internet: logical.cuc.ab.ca (403)-299-9900 24 Lines |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>From bhorn at netcom.com (Bruce Horn) Wed Mar 30 04:29:33 1994
From: bhorn at netcom.com (Bruce Horn) (Bruce Horn)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 20:29:33 -0800
Subject: Ultimate Single/Multi
Message-ID: <199403300429.UAA29386 at mail.netcom.com>
Although I'm not yet ready to express a personal opinion on
the use of multiple transmitters by single operators, I thought
an examination of the rules for some major contests might be
interesting.
ARRL DX Contest -
Under the miscellaneous section, the rules clearly state that
"all transmitters and receivers must be located within a 500-
meter-diameter circle, excluding directly connected antennas.
This prohibits the use of remote receiving installations."
I would conclude that single operators may use multiple
transmitters located at some common site (restricted by the
length of the coax or a 500m diameter).
CQ Worldwide DX Contest -
Under the Multi-Operator section, the rules state that "all
transmitters must be located within a 500 meter diameter or
within the property limits of the station licensee's address,
whichever is greater. All antennas must be physically connected
by wires to the transmitters and receivers."
Now things are starting to get interesting. The CQWW rules for
single operator categories do not mention any limitations on
transmitter(s) location. I'm sure the rule writers did not
envision needing to address multiple transmitters in the single
operator category. One can now buy off the shelf hardware to
remotely control by ham radio or telephone one's station. This
includes transceiver control, rotator control, etc. To carry
this to the extreme, the rules do not prohibit me from having
a station on the west coast and a station on the east coast, as
long as I have only one transmitted signal at a time. In fact
I don't need to be physically present at either station (a
solution for contesters in the black hole ?). Seems like a
loophole waiting to be exploited or closed.
ARRL Sweepstakes -
Since the only categories are single operator and multi/single,
the rules do not address multiple transmitters or their locations.
This does not produce quite so large a geographic loophole as the
CQWW situation, since it is reasonable to conclude that all
transmitters must be sited within the same ARRL section. However,
it would allow single operators to pick multiple geographically
desirable sites within their section, using the remote controls
previously mentioned.
If the goal is push the technology and operator capabilities to the
maximum, the CQWW seems like a grand opportunity. Particularly, in
a geographically large country like the U.S. Think of the scoring
possibilities.
Let 'er rip! (It's not April 1 yet).
73 de Bruce, WA7BNM (bhorn at netcom.com)
P.S. Wonder I could talk one of the big multi/multi station into
letting me remotely "borrow" one of their big stacks.
>From slay at netcom.com (Sandy Lynch) Wed Mar 30 08:04:57 1994
From: slay at netcom.com (Sandy Lynch) (Sandy Lynch)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 00:04:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Heil Pro-Set
Message-ID: <199403300804.AAA21146 at netcom9.netcom.com>
You won't believe this. I still can't. But, maybe it has happened to
others and I am just learning it for the first time.
Last week I sent a fax to Heil Sound asking for info on a "fix" for
the Pro-Set-4 when used with the FT-1000D. As with several other users,
I had been experiencing insufficient audio drive in the stereo mode,
apparently due to an impedance mismatch.
Today, Bob Heil himself called and left a message on my answering
machine saying that the Pro-Set does have a problem with "certain units,
but not all FT-1000s". To correct the problem, he has offered to send
a pair of lower impedance speaker units which are "simple to install".
He asked that I continue to follow-up with him and let him know the
results. And, he sincerely thanked me for my business.
Sheesh - I spent more than 10 years living and working in Japan flogging
high tech products to the Japanese, so I know what first rate customer
service and support is and can be. But even after that, I must say that
I am very, very impressed by the personal "hands-on" attitude back
at Heil.
Well, say.......... don't you think that my opinion of the folks at
Heil Sound hasn't skyrocketed as a result of that simple telephone call?
You bet it has! Maybe this is really the way they do business
at Heil Sound - and I just never realized it.
Anyway - kudos are definitely in order, at least based on the phone call,
from Bob Heil and Heil Sound.
For others in the same predicament using the FT-1000D and the Pro-Set 4,
I will be happy to follow-up and let you know the results.
73 de Sandy WA6BXH/7J1ABV slay at netcom.com
>From Carmel Bailey <cbailey at calvin.stemnet.nf.ca> Wed Mar 30 09:46:29 1994
From: Carmel Bailey <cbailey at calvin.stemnet.nf.ca> (Carmel Bailey)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 06:16:29 -0330 (NST)
Subject: unsubscribe
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.9403300629.A20725-4100000 at calvin.stemnet.nf.ca>
unsubscribe
>From Skelton, Tom" <TSkelton at engineer.clemsonsc.NCR.COM Wed Mar 30 01:15:00 1994
From: Skelton, Tom" <TSkelton at engineer.clemsonsc.NCR.COM (Skelton, Tom)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 94 17:15:00 PST
Subject: WPX and interim suffixes
Message-ID: <2D997852 at admin.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM>
6) The "newly upgraded" stations that sign /AG, /AE or whatever
I don't think are supposed to be counted as new px's. Can this be
fixed?
73,
Paul, NX1H
Fix what?
I didn't go at this full bore, but my opinion is that those "interim"
suffixes are just that: suffixes, not prefixes. They are only used
by the FCC so those who upgrade can use their new band/mode
priviledges immediately. I don't consider them part of the call
for contest purposes and didn't enter them at all.
Before you disagree, think about this scenario: suppose WB4iUX
(my favorite dx'er/contester and certainly yours, too) had just
upgraded from technician to extra in a VEC - flurry weekend.
Month upon cloudy month passes as he awaits his FCC mail.
He starts WPX as WB4iUX/AE so he can enjoy all those really
great ops in the 75m ssb band. (You know, the ones who call
CQ DX on top of A92BE, etc.) On Saturday, slap dab in the
middle of the contest, the US Mail delivers his Amateur Extra
license. Saints be praised! Does he continue to sign "interim
AE" since he started the contest that way? OF COURSE NOT!
Heresy!
Again, the interim suffixes are just that (suffixes) and, IMHO,
have nothing whatsoever to do with logging them for WPX.
73, Tom WB4iUX
Tom.Skelton at ClemsonSC.NCR.COM
ps: Another thought: would our infamous op WB4iUX have
QSL cards printed with WB4iUX/AE???
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list