reply to WRTC comments

[ERIC.L.SCACE at adn.sprint.com]

   The WRTC Administration would like to thank EVERYONE for their comments on
the WRTC proposal.  We've gotten a lot of very thoughtful remarks and
suggestions and offers to help.  It's really been great.

   In the last few days Bob K3EST and Dick N6AA have posted here on Internet
some well thought out critiques of the Rules.  I also received a letter from
I2UIY with additional remarks.

   In this message I'll respond to some of the points raised.  There are some
details which I do not here in the office; if appropriate I'll send a
follow-up later.

"...WRTC QTH stations will have similar equipment and antennas..."
   OK, guys, you figured it out.  It is NOT expected to have EQUAL stations! 
We will only try to have "similar" stations.
   Let's assume that it takes about a 2km separation to get inter-station
interference on the same band under control.  It would be theoretically
possible to find some nice flat terrain on the eastern shore of Maryland and
lay out 50 stations in a 11 x 11 km staggered grid, assuming we can find a
bunch of cooperative land owners.  We would need shelter, tables, chairs,
radios, antennas, towers, coax, computers, power generation & fuel, and
toilets for all 50 locations plus spares ... installed ahead of time and
available to competitors for some exercise before the start of the contest to
shake out bugs and become familiar with local propagation.  Afterwards it all
has to be torn down.  Think of it as a 10-day field day effort, multiplied by
at least 50.  That would be great fun to try -- but it is too much work for a
group of unpaid volunteers.  We are already a bit terrified at the workload
already in hand.
   The idea of having a similar field-day style set up strung along both sides
of the Washington Mall, putting amateur radio contesting on grand display in
front of the public in the nation's capital, was also considered.  But the
interstation interference would just kill the bands.  The mall is about 3km
long.  Even 10 stations trying to operate on 20m within a space that small
will just trash each other's receivers.
   Fortunately, the Baltimore-Washington area is not plagued by high mountains
and deep valleys.  The terrain is generally rolly.
   We have compromised from an ideal.  But unless someone can come up with a
group of paid people who will install and maintain 50 field-day style sites
for 1-2 weeks, it's not clear that there are better practical alternatives.

"... ITU zone oriented team selection is wrong ... "
   This seems to be an area where it is unlikely to be able to please
everyone.  There were a few factors behind choosing this approach:
   a) one team per country means smaller countries with limited contesting
population sends one team to WRTC, while a bigger country with a large number
of excellent operators is constrained to one team also.  This aspect seemed
less desirable than an approach that was more regionally-oriented where
smaller countries were grouped together.
   b) There are not the resources to accept one team from all 180+ countries
in the world.  Granted, not all countries in the world have active contesters
who would pay to come to Washington, but the risk of being
overwhelmed-beyond-50 seemed much higher with the per-country approach as
compared to the per-zone apprach.
   It is anticipated that applications will be received from 30-35 IARU zones.
 This will leave 15-20 additional teams which can be choosen, so that areas
with lots of very good operators will have multiple teams.

"... no tape recording provision ..."
   Hmmm.  Well, actually, tape recording the stations isn't excluded.  It just
wasn't mentioned in the Rules, since it seemed a detail in how the judges were
going to do their job.  Lew K4VX is heading up the Judging area and it will be
up to him and his team to decide how best to supervise the competition.  I'll
pass this along.  Seems like a good idea to me, personally.

"... packet spotting ..."
   This point got lots of negative comments.  At the WRTC Administration
meeting on Aug 29 it was agreed to remove packet spotting from the team
competition.
   However, it does not seem practical to prevent packet from being using by
non-WRTC people around the world.  Perhaps part of the solution to the
"friends-only-working-friends" problem is to provide an incentive for the rest
of the world to work as many WRTC team stations as possible.

"... use CW only ..."
   This was considered as a potential contribution to fixing the "friends-only
-work-friends" (FOWF?) issue.  But there are plenty of very good contesters
who happen to be stronger on phone than on CW -- should an outstanding phone
contester be excluded from WRTC?  Further, the IARU mixed-mode contest adds an
element of strategy in choosing when to use CW vs SSB.
   In the end, it seemed like solving FOWF by restricting operation to CW was
sacrificing too much.

"... removing unique QSOs ..."
   This provision was included for two reasons: (a) to avoid burdening the
judges with too many decisions about bad callsigns during the limited period
of time available for reviewing logs, and (b) as a step to reduce the friends-
only-work-friends issue.

"... one hour log submission deadline for the teams ..."
   It is expected that all teams will use real-time computer logging.  The
feedback from principal organizers of the 1990 WRTC was that the top
contesters in all parts of the world in 1990 were already using real-time
logging software.  It is now five years later and this trend towards real-time
logging (at least among the creme de la creme that we hope to have at WRTC-95)
has become even more prevalent.
   Computer logs also simplify the work of the judges in deciphering
handwriting (or having to check the tapes to see if the handwriting
corresponds in some way to what was heard).
   If it appears that many WRTC teams do NOT want to computer log in
real-time, then we may change this. (However, manual logs will have to be
entered into the computer by the team operators, not by the judges!)   But to
date the remarks of K3EST and N6AA are the first that suggest manually
logging.

"... hand-sent CW only, no programmable keyers or computers ..."
   See earlier remarks about phone operators.
   The general feeling within the Administration is that memory keyers and
computers are an integral part of the contesting state of the art today, just
like notch filters and other sophisticated receiver technologies, and so on. 
There just does not seem to be the sentiment to limit such technologies which
are in widespread (even if not absolutely universal) usage.

"... computers should be used for logging only, not duping or checking calls
against a database ..."
   See above remarks about real-time logging and duping.
   The use of MASTER.DAT-type files for checking calls is not contemplated.

"... teams should not identify themselves to friends ..."
   Agreed.  Identification and soliciting packet announcements ("Please put me
on the Cluster network") will not be permitted.

"... Everything that can be done to make the contest a fair one should be
done. "
   Agreed, but respecting the diversity of opinion on what is "fair" and
respecting the limits of the organizers who, like all of us, doing this for
"fun" in an unpaid hobby.  We are trying hard!  Keep those ideas coming.

   Thanks for reading this long message.  I hope it was both entertaining and
illuminating.

-- Eric K3NA
for WRTC-95, Inc.


eric.L.scace at adn.sprint.com


>From ken.silverman at atlas.ccmail.AirTouch.COM (ken silverman)  Fri Sep  2 21:16:27 1994
From: ken.silverman at atlas.ccmail.AirTouch.COM (ken silverman) (ken silverman)
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 94 12:16:27 PST
Subject: Vertical Yagi antennas
Message-ID: <9408027785.AA778533387 at atlas.ccmail.airtouch.com>

Hi Gang,

I've been modeling various vertical antennas, and tried to model a vertically 
mounted yagi which is close to ground.  AO/NEC was not treating this parasitic 
combination as a yagi, but as a single element vertical (at least the pattern 
was as such).  

A typical half wave dipole mounted vertically near the ocean has a nice low 
angle pattern with around 6.4 dBi (antenna modeling users will know that even a 
dipole over ground will show similar gain).  I was modeling a single vertical 
dipole at a few inches to 1/8 wave off the ground.  The pattern is greatly 
effected by this change.  

I then added a parasitic reflector, but the pattern still looks like the single 
vertical, but gain in dBi is way off.  Has anyone had experience with either 
modeling, or real time performance of vertically mounted yagis?  I wonder if 
this is a cockpit oversight, or quirk of AO.  (the same array dimensions I used 
were fine when modeled horizontally at 1/2 wave height over ground)

Any thoughts?  

Best Regards, Ken WM2C

ken.silverman at atlas.ccmail.airtouch.com