N9HZQ CQP score

Jeff Tucker N9HZQ tucker at eedsp.gatech.EDU
Tue Oct 4 20:03:46 EDT 1994

         1994 California QSO Party

  Class: Single Op, All Bands
  State: Georgia
  Power: 1000

    Callsign used = N9HZQ (operated at W4AQL)

  Band       CW    SSB   Pts

    80       21      4    71      
    40       50     26   202      
    20       71    294   801      
    15       59    173   523      
    10        0      0     0      

   All      201    497  1597 

  Multipliers: 58

  Score:  1597 * 58 ==> 92,626

Equipment: 2 * Kenwood TS940S

Antennas: TH6DXX, Hygain 155 15-meter, KLM 40-meter, 160m dipole for 80(!) 

Operators: N9HZQ 

Remarks: My first single-op and first CQP.  What a blast!  Sure wish I had
an 80m antenna.  I burned up the 160 and the 40m didn't work so great on 80. 

Jeff Tucker       N9HZQ
tucker at eedsp.gatech.edu             
W4AQL Contest Team              

>From k2mm at MasPar.COM (John Zapisek)  Wed Oct  5 01:01:22 1994
From: k2mm at MasPar.COM (John Zapisek) (John Zapisek)
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 94 17:01:22 PDT
Subject: VHF Manufactured Contacts
Message-ID: <9410050001.AA11729 at greylock.local>

As a charter MGEF'er, I've read with great interest all the ballyhoo over
Dick/K3MQH's hamfest-QSO windfall on 2m FM.  I thought Ron/WZ1V's original
posting went a little overboard, and I was glad to see him amend his
position in a subsequent posting.

> [Ron/WZ1V]  So I guess it's all fine and well to use advertising to
> fabricate QSOs!

In this context, I think it's OK.  And not just letter-of-the-rules OK, but
even generally-accepted spirit-of-the-rules OK.  VHF-contest ethics are a
little different from HF-contest ethics; they always have been.

Consider that most if not all of the top unlimited-multi's send out their
own rovers to increase their grid-square totals on the sparsely-inhabited
microwave bands.  These are often "captive" rovers who work only their own
guys back on the hill and nobody else.  By any measure, these are clearly
manufactured Qs.  They are, however, generally considered quite legitimate.

In the pre-grid-square, pre-rover years, we'd sometimes send out captive
rovers to several nearby sections.  To comply with the "one-transmitter
one-callsign" rule, we'd have one car with, say, three operators, and, for
each band, one receiver, one antenna, and three transmitters -- one per
operator/callsign.  This was good for three new sections on each band.
(Sure was nice being in New England with all those close-in sections!)


Sounds very similar.  One TX, one call.  Is it that manufactured Qs are OK
only if they're new mults?  Or maybe the problem is the advertising?

> Did Dick ask for volunteers to help spread the word at the hamfest to
> support their contest effort?  Sure he did, why not?  No rule against it.

Exactly so.  We've seen VHF'ers advertise here on CQ-CONTEST looking for
contest skeds.  Nothing wrong with that.  You might even consider QSOs made
that way to also be manufactured, though to a lesser degree.  (The packet
purists among the HF ops might insist, however, that this puts you in the
"assisted" category :-)

The test for allowable during-contest solicitation has generally been that
it must not use non-ham-radio means, e.g., telephone.  A poster under a
tower at a hamfest strikes me as being quite ham-radio-ish.

> Is this in the true spirit of ham radio?  Is it even legal?

Legal?  Sure.  In the spirit?  Now THAT's a good question.  I know I'd have
felt a lot better about our long string of consecutive victories if our
rovers had worked at least a few other stations not affiliated with us.

> If there are those who feel there are unfair advantages in VHF contesting
> due to "legal loopholes" in the present rule structure, please give the
> ARRL CAC a chance to refine the wording of those rules.

It's a tough problem.

Ban FM?  Personally, as a weak-signal dilettante, I could go for that.  At
least 2m FM, anyway.

Ban rovers?  Naw, non-captive roving is too much fun.

Ban QSOs with "affiliated" rovers?  Maybe.  This tightens the loophole but
doesn't close it.  You'd have to trust the mountain-toppers to not abuse the
ambiguity in the definition of "affiliated".  That might not be a problem.
It would certainly reduce the enormous amount of effort required to do a
competitive unlimited-multi operation.  It would no longer be necessary to
outfit and coordinate a fleet of captive rovers.

Or how about a requirement that a rover make QSOs with stations in at least
three different grids from each grid they rove to?  This means a captive
rover could work his guys on the hill plus someone in the same car but would
still have to make at least one random QSO with somebody who submits a log.
If not, QSOs with that rover in that grid wouldn't count for anybody.  This
might even help solve the "rover circling" problem.

Since moving to California, I've been able to make only occasional trips to
Mt. Greylock to operate with the W2SZ/1 gang.  As such, I'd suggest that
more weight be given to the opinions of those who regularly operate the
contest.  I'm sure there are considerations that have escaped me.  Still,
it's my hope that these observations help put some of the issues into better
perspective.  73.  --John/K2MM/WA1MUG

P.S.  For our HF-only friends, it might be worth explaining why VHF-contest
ethics are a little different.  Basically, VHF contests have the additional
goal of encouraging equipment construction for the higher bands to help
promote their non-contest use.  This has roots in a time when even 2m was
mostly vacant and use-it-or-lose-it was a real fear.  This consideration
still exists, but it applies nowadays mostly to 902 MHz and up.

Also, VHF tests tend to be competitions more among stations than operators.
To apply the concept of equilization, you would have to evaluate all the
operators' skills and apply a corresponding factor to each station's score.
In this way the best station would be truly known, irrespective of any
ringers or hired guns :-)

>From Robert A. Wilson" <n6tv at VNET.IBM.COM  Wed Oct  5 01:17:55 1994
From: Robert A. Wilson" <n6tv at VNET.IBM.COM (Robert A. Wilson)
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 94 17:17:55 PDT
Subject: 1994 CQP High Claimed Scores to date

1994 California QSO Party (CQP) High Claimed Scores

Send updates/corrections to N6TV at VNET.IBM.COM.  If you have at least one
line in the message that matches the following format, it will help
me a lot.

More to come.  Help me fill in some of the blanks.

Inside California:

          CW  Phone   Total
Call     QSOs  QSOs    QSOs  Mul  Points   Comments
N6RO      866  2060    2926   58 389,644   CCOS, M/M, +K3EST
W6EEN                  2100   58 287,970   RIV, M/S, +KA6SAR, K6XC
AB6FO     825   829    1654   58 239,714   LAX
N6EK      670   769    1439   58 205,784   ALA
KC6X                   1497   57 203,262   LAX
AA6KX     659   762    1411   57 199,557   ALP/MON, missed HI
K6KM                   1290                Butte, M/S +WM2C
AB6WM     477   736    1213   58 168,374   SCRZ, 19 hours
KM6YX                  1371   58 159,152   LAX
AA6MV     282   718    1000   58 132,356
N6TV      196   804    1000   56 122,976   SCLA, 11 hrs; then to Yolo
KN6EL     486   257     743   58 114,376   Butte, low power
KJ6HO                   876   56  97,328   LAX, low power
WA6SDM    306   323     629   58  90,712   SCLA
N6BT      103   439     542   57  67,659   YOLO expedition, N6TV opr.
WA7BNM                  413   52  44,616   LAX, low power, 8.75 hrs
AE0M      143   130     273   49  33,781   SCLA
K6LL       88   143     231   48  26,400   IMP, 2.5 hrs, also on from AZ!
K2MM                    131   30  10,530   SCLA
NG0X/6      0    10      10    9     180   Mobile

Outside California:

Call      CW  Phone   Total  Mul  Points   Comments
N6CQ/3   229   518      747   56  96,488   PA, 21 hrs, missed SBEN,STAN
KE9I     217   507      724   58  96,338   IN
N9HZQ    201   497      698   58  92,626   GA, at W4AQL
K0PP/&   236   343      579   55  76,670   MT
K6XO/7   206   362      568   57  76,494   UT, missed Colusa
WA6KUI                  533   56  75,600   TN, 22+ hrs, missed TRIN,SBEN
KF0IA     58   574      632   55  72,710   CO, 18.8 hours
W5ASP    227   134      361   55  51,810
K7GM/4   197   145      342   52  45,812   NC, low power, 7 hours
KM0L     214    97      311   51  42,636
K0GU      98   245      343   54  42,336   CO
VE4GV     92   237      329       39,750   MB, low power, 7.5 hours
K2UVG     91   242      333   52  39,364   FL, low power
AA4NC                   300   54           NC, low power
N4OGW/9                 235   51  35,955
K6LL/7   110   156      266   51  32,742   AZ, also entering from CA!
KO9Y     113   116      229   44  25,124
WQ5L     113   103      216   46  25,070   AL, 8.5 hours
WD0T      83    93      176   45  19,575   SD, 4.5 hours
AA7FL     48   139      187   46  19,412   OR
KC0EI    145    77            45  26,505
N1PBT      1   192      193   50  19,350   VT, low power, 16.75 hrs
XE1/AA6RX 88    62      150   50  19,400   Mexico
K0EJ      30   131      161   49  18,718   TN, low power
K1TN      99    45      144   43  16,641   CT
N4ZR                    152   39  15,708
WB5CRG     1   136      137   46  12,650   TX
KD0AV     62    11       73   24   4,992   IL, low power
N6TR      79    26      105   41   4,305   OR
KB1GW                   105   38           low power, 4.75 hours

>From Randy A Thompson <K5ZD at world.std.com>  Tue Oct  4 20:37:10 1994
From: Randy A Thompson <K5ZD at world.std.com> (Randy A Thompson)
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 20:36:10 +0059 (EDT)
Subject: Club Scores and Single Band
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9410042008.B5758-0100000 at world.std.com>


You make it sound like this is "common knowledge."  Well it may be for 
members of large East Coast contest clubs and CQ Contest Committee, but I 
don't recall ever seeing information on this in CQ Magazine.  Ever!

Why not put a note in the Misc section of the CQ WW rules that states 
these extra contacts can be submitted for Club score.  I bet there are a 
lot of people who would be surprised!

I remember the first time I learned of this rule.  I had already been in 
contesting for more than 6 years.

The CQ Contests are the worst for having unwritten, undocumented rules 
and interpretations of rules.  I for one wish they would decide on them 
and make them public.

k5zd at world.std.com

On Mon, 3 Oct 1994, Eugene Walsh wrote:

> Gents:  On the inquiry of AA7FL regarding single 
> band entries, The CQWW has always (Doin' this
> 40 years now) allowed extra band contacts to 
> be used for club scores.  Anyone really should
> know this if they have been around a while, and
> any one of them would answer if asked.  
> Its hard to believe that an answer could not be 
> gotten from anyone associated with CQWW.  Whom
> have you asked???
> 73 Gene N2AA

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list