WRTC
DEVANS at lynx.colorado.edu
DEVANS at lynx.colorado.edu
Fri Sep 2 20:30:24 EDT 1994
>Internal radiophysics.com LAN RFC 822 headers
>From evans at jupiter Fri Sep 2 11:26:46 1994
>Return-Path: <evans at jupiter>
>Received: from dablik by jupiter.RPI (4.1/SMI-4.1)
> id AA02140; Fri, 2 Sep 94 11:26:42 MDT
>Message-Id: <9409021726.AA02140 at jupiter.RPI>
>X-Sender: evans at jupiter
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Date: Fri, 02 Sep 1994 11:25:27 -0600
>To: interput("in%""cq-contest at tgv.com""")
>From: evans at jupiter (D. R. Evans)
>Subject: Re: WRTC
>X-Mailer: <PC Eudora Version 1.4>
>From Bob's though provoking posting:
>
> B. A PED test(CW, SSB or Both) of some sort. The teams operate
>JE3MAS's PED pileup simulator for 2 hours. The score is calculated
>by CT. In this case ALL contestants are exactly equal.
>
I think that there are several difficulties with this proposal.
1. Not everyone uses CT. (Right, Tree?)
2. PED, or any other computer program, is simply not the same thing as
operating on the air.
3. Some perfectly competent operators, while they can just about bear to use
a computer in a contest, get sufficient "computer fright" when simply put
down in front of one that they operate inefficiently unless they have good
old familiar radios around.
4. (sort of like 2) I have all kinds of knobs to twiddle on my radio when I
am tring to copy signals in a pile up; these don't exist on a computer.
I understand that in some objective way, Bob's suggestion makes sense. I am
just concerned that what it is measuring (whatever that is) is not
sufficiently close to what we would like to be measuring.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Doc Evans NQ0I/G4AMJ : devans at orion.colorado.edu
al019 at freenet.hsc.colorado.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------
>From Victor Burns <vburns at netcom.com> Fri Sep 2 21:59:48 1994
From: Victor Burns <vburns at netcom.com> (Victor Burns)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 13:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 10 minute rule-EVOLUTION OF RADIOS/COMPUTERS OPS
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9409021323.A27530-0100000 at netcom14>
Consider the evolution in technology form the starting place of the rules
of the two major contest:
This thread starts from:
> 73, walt stinson, w0cp (cac vice chairman) <wstinson at listenup.com>
> the arrl and cq rules differ. cq allows one, and only one, other band to
> used for mult hunting/working during the 10 min period. arrl allows just one
> band to be transmitted on during the 10 min period, with listening permitted
> on the other bands. thus, arrl favors smaller stations, while cq favors
> larger ones.
NOT SO-READ THE RULES!
A very close evaluation of the rules would be as follows:
ARRL-Fully intends or intended one upon a time-that just one radio is
present on the site (in theory) I presume by the rule:
"D(1) Multioperator-Single Transmitter. .... 'Once the station has
begun OPERATION on a given band, IT MUST REMAIN ON THAT BAND FOR AT LEAST
10 MINUTES; listening time counts as OPERATING time'".
It really seems that the intention is that if you change bands in hopes of
snaging a new mult, you have listened there and ethically you must stay on
that new band for 10 minutes-EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T WORK ANYONE.
While this is very difficult to enforce in real life it is the rule and
while I have not spoken with the original guys who wrote the rules that is
probably what they intended, not taking into account the new area of
mult-VFO radios and semi-multi-multi stations in the multi-single
catagory and networked computers to verify needed stations etc.
It is commonplace to have several radios on various band for the M/S
catagory in ARRL, listening to the two other bands where an important
mult may be found, again totally unenforcable, but agreed to be the way
to somewhat interpret the rules in the modern day?
CQWW-"2.a. Exception: One-and-only one other band may be used during the
same time period if-and only if- the station worked is a new multiplier."
I would suspect that CQWW original rules would allow you "switch" bands
to work one quick mult every 10 minutes which still seperates the M/S
from M/M in some fashion.
Today the practice is several listening radios on the Run Band and other
possible bands up an down depending on propagation looking for the new
mults feveroushly throughoput the contest, not just the incidental two
stations saying "heh I need you on 15 lets QSY to XXX.XX". The
difference between a competitive M/S and M/M is not that great, in fact
M/S effort may even be greater.```
The final issue is the changes in equipment and sophistication of the
operators and teams stretching the rules to take full advantage of the
set-ups we can configure and run with a computer has changes contesting
an incredible amount for the big stations, more so than probably
anticipated even through the last sunspot cycle.
__
---==-------||-----==--- Victor V. Burns - KI6IM / V31VB
||
---===-------||-----===--- V31DX - THE CUBA LIBRE CONTEST CLUB
|| PO Box 9794
---===-------||-----===--- Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
|| 619-744-6836
----===-------||-----===----
||
----===-------||-----===---- e_mail vburns at netcom.com
||
----===--------||------===---- "Has anyone ever told you you have a
|| very nice yagi?"
----===--------||------===----
||
----===---------||-------===----
||
----==----------||-------===----
||
~~
>From k2mm at MasPar.COM (John Zapisek) Fri Sep 2 22:13:50 1994
From: k2mm at MasPar.COM (John Zapisek) (John Zapisek)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 94 14:13:50 PDT
Subject: Wurt-See
Message-ID: <9409022113.AA15174 at greylock.local>
Hi, Eric. I liked your posting. It made plenty of real-world sense.
I've read some of the discussion about how to choose participants. E.g.,
whether to give more or less weight to single-op, or multi-op, or even SOA
scores. They all have valid viewpoints, but they do not all seem equally
applicable to the World Radiosport TEAM Championships.
Perhaps a more explicit statement of what skills you're trying to measure
would have helped. But for now let's presume that your choice of multi-op
competition is a strong indicator.
Among the operators I've gotten to know, there are a few whose single-op
skills are truly exceptional but whose teamwork skills aren't worth a damn.
That's OK; this contest stuff has something for everybody. But while you
might think it WRTC's loss if these ops didn't participate, perhaps it's
better if they give WRTC a miss and wait for the World Radiosport INDIVIDUAL
Championships?
I'm *not* saying that turning in big SO or SOA scores should count *against*
anybody :-) But a failure to play ANY multi-op over the last few years may
indicate a lack of ability or desire to work as part of a team. Maybe these
ops would be more in their element hosting the parties for the entrants?
However you work it, choosing the participants will be an unenviable job.
Hope your armor stands up to the grenades! 73. --John/K2MM
"There are no losers on a winning team." --Dave Patterson, UC Berkeley
>From Randy A Thompson <K5ZD at world.std.com> Sat Sep 3 01:38:23 1994
From: Randy A Thompson <K5ZD at world.std.com> (Randy A Thompson)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 20:38:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 40-2CD Mods
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9409022016.A27216-0100000 at world.std.com>
Here is what I bought from Texas Towers to upgrade my Cushcraft 40-2CD.
We'll see over the next 5 winters if it was worth it.
Each "piece" represents a 6' length.
Qty Size Cost
4 1.125" 21.60
1 1.875 11.40
6 1.0" 28.80
1 2.0" 11.70
2 .875 9.00
1 .375 2.10
------
84.60 + shipping
This did the 118 MPH mods specified in the W6QHS article.
If you want to save a few dollars and some time, you can skip the
small tubing. I am sure it helps, but the real protection comes from
beefing up the boom and the center element pieces.
Notes:
I could not get the driven elements out of the black phenolic. After 7
years the weather had just sealed them together. I ended up sliding the
inserts in, after very carefully measuring things, then drilled and
screwed them together.
YOU MUST DO THIS - Cut the black plastic on the traps and replace the
screws that connect the coil wires to the elements. I used Stainless.
You can't believe how crudded up this was.
I put 1/4"x3" bolts through the boom at each place they joined. Also did
the same at the boom to mast plate and at each boom to element plate. I
made darn sure nothing was going to rotate this time! I upgraded
everything to stainless u-bolts while I was at it.
Be sure to put something inside the ends of the boom. I used some heavy
PVC pipe.
I use a bead balun at the feed point rather than the roll of coax
recommended in the manual. Cuts down on the imbalance.
Good luck!
Randy
k5zd at world.std.com
On 2 Sep 1994, McCarty, DK 'Dav wrote:
> Randy,
>
> Would you please send me details on what you bought from Texas Towers to
> beef up your Cushcraft 40? We need to order ASAP to ship to the south.
>
> David K. McCarty, K5GN
> dkmc at chevron.com
>
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list