Low Power Sprint

Thu Sep 15 17:26:00 EDT 1994

     WM4T and WA2SRQ have recently mentioned their desire for low
power recognition in the Sprints.  Both Tree and I are making an effort
to recognize low power entrants, but we obviously have not been doing
enough to make others aware of that effort.
     In my writeup last time (and I think Tree's too, but I don't have it
in front of me) I put an asterisk beside the call of all those who ran
low power (that I knew of).  I had mentioned in the previous writeup that
we would be doing that.  We will be continuing that practice.
     In addition, the rules posted to the Reflector (and sent to those
requesting rules) request that summary sheets indicate if the station
was operated using low power.  As time goes on, the accuracy of the
asterisk will improve.
     So.....get on the radio in the Sprints and turn in those low-power
logs.  You won't get lost in the crowd (at least in the writeup).

                             Rick, K7GM

>From Steve Harrison <sharriso at sysplan.com>  Sat Sep  3 03:36:11 1994
From: Steve Harrison <sharriso at sysplan.com> (Steve Harrison)
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 14:36:11 +30000
Subject: SPRINT MULTS
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.90.940915142641.12484D-100000 at eagle>

On Thu, 15 Sep 1994, H. Ward Silver wrote:

> The examples Steve gave about traffic are not valid analogies.  These
> things are violations of established rules...ie; cheating.  Let's all be
> aware that innovation does NOT equal cheating.  Just 'cause I didn't think
> of it doesn't make it cheating.  If the practice is found to be noxious
> and undesirable then make it a rule.
> 
> Ward N0AX
> 
They may not be exact analogies, but the exact same principal applies. 
In today's world of looser morals than ever before (and just try to 
disprove that one!), more people than ever before seem to be looking for any 
way possible to one-up everybody else, whether the method discovered is
legal or not. Some smart tax dodges are clearly defined as innovative; yet,
they are certainly obnoxious, usually detrimental to somebody else, and 
strictly defined by society, definitely cheating! Steve KO0U/4

>From H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu  Thu Sep 15 17:15:37 1994
From: H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu (H. Ward Silver)
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 09:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SPRINT MULTS
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9409150934.A24138-b100000 at bach>

When the sprints were first established, I believe that the intent was to
make the contest as wide-open as possible.  ie; If it wasn't expressly
forbidden, go for it.  Here we go with the old Founding Fathers guff... 
This is the same type of discussion as regards the tx-on-2-freqs-at-once. 
Nobody ever said you couldn't!  It was ASSUMED that you couldn't by some. 
It was discussed and subsequently changed...ok by me.

As far as non-contest entrant QSOs...a QSO is a QSO is a QSO.  If you eke
out the necessary information by any means, it should be valid.  If Baldur
gives you 599 and says AT ANY TIME, QTH is Kigale, Uganda, then what's the
problem?  What if you work somebody who wants to be in the contest, but
doesn't know the zone?  You tell him or her that country x is in zone y
and go on your way.  It counts.  If you get an acknowledgement that this
is the first contest QSO for that VE2 you found on 14.347, why shouldn't
it count as serial number 1?

This is like W6AM's experience with a guy that wouldn't send him a QSL,
but wrote him a nasty letter about how he heard him just fine, but didn't
like him or some such.  Don sent the letter and log entry off to Newington
and Jim White was happy to count it for DXCC.

There are two basic issues here.  One, do we operate in "all is permitted
that is not forbidden" or "all is forbidden which is not permitted" mode? 
I pick the former.  Two, should contests be "closed", and QSOs only
permitted with other entrants?  I think not.

>From H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu  Thu Sep 15 17:28:44 1994
From: H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu (H. Ward Silver)
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 09:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SPRINT MULTS
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9409150940.B24138-9100000 at bach>

The examples Steve gave about traffic are not valid analogies.  These
things are violations of established rules...ie; cheating.  Let's all be
aware that innovation does NOT equal cheating.  Just 'cause I didn't think
of it doesn't make it cheating.  If the practice is found to be noxious
and undesirable then make it a rule.

Ward N0AX

>From Kurszewski Chad" <kurszewski_chad at macmail1.csg.mot.com  Thu Sep 15 11:43:27 1994
From: Kurszewski Chad" <kurszewski_chad at macmail1.csg.mot.com (Kurszewski Chad)
Date: 15 Sep 1994 10:43:27 U
Subject: multi-single...new approach
Message-ID: <199409151624.AA01226 at pobox.mot.com>

>From: Randy A Thompson on Wed, Sep 14, 1994 10:09 PM
>Subject: Re: multi-single...new approach

> As part of the new rule, I would like to see the rule specifically state
> that the 10 min period begins when the first QSO is made on a band
> (don't let people make their own interpretation of this).

I would have to disagree with this.  As someone has said in the past (forgive
me, I forget who it was), if I sit in a pile-up on 160 for 5 minutes to work
some mult, I would have to stay on 160 for 10 more minutes, totalling 15
minutes.

Now if the mult station was on 80M prior to this, what is the 80M op supposed
to do during this first 5 minutes when the 160 op was unsuccessfully calling
this mult?  Twiddle his thumbs??  Transmit?  I agree with you Randy, and
others, there should be a rule that no more than 2 simultanous transmissions,
run and mult, therefore the 80M op should no longer transmit.  So this 5
minutes of time gets TOTALLY LOST.  It is not assigned to 160M, since the QSO
hasn't been made yet.  But if the 80M op just sits there and doesn't transmit,
HOW CAN YOU SAY THOSE FIVE MINUTES BELONGS TO 80M?

I think the (interpretation of) the the beginning of the 10 minute rule should
remain at the end of the last QSO on the prior band.

Chad   WE9V
op of KS9K
Member:  Sultans of Shwing
Loud is Cool....yeah, heh, heh, heh, LOUD IS COOL!
Kurszewski_Chad at macmaiL1.csg.mot.com

>From jlgiasi at umassmed.UMMED.EDU (John L. Luigi Giasi)  Thu Sep 15 17:18:33 1994
From: jlgiasi at umassmed.UMMED.EDU (John L. Luigi Giasi) (John L. Luigi Giasi)
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 12:18:33 EDT
Subject: Hearing/Working
Message-ID: <9409151618.AA17512 at umassmed.UMMED.EDU>

According to W7NI at delphi.com........
>W7NI at delphi.com "If you can't work 'em, it doesn't matter if you can hear 'em

It sure as hell matters to me! You are making a fool of yourself calling 
while the new mult is transmitting. I can hear him S5 when you
aren't wasting breath, so just QRX. Thanks.

:-)

-- 
John L. Luigi Giasi, AA1AA			     jlgiasi at umassmed.ummed.edu
System Programmer/Administrator                                 aa1aa at ummed.edu
Information Resources Division        
Univ. of Mass. Medical Center				         (508) 856-UNIX
Worcester, MA 01655                                         FAX: (508) 856-2440

"Laurence A. Canter and Marsha S. Seigel of CSLAW wasted more human
and computer resources than Robert T. Morris. OBEY NETIQUETTE!"

>From Steve Harrison <sharriso at sysplan.com>  Fri Sep  2 23:12:23 1994
From: Steve Harrison <sharriso at sysplan.com> (Steve Harrison)
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 10:12:23 +30000
Subject: Questions on 80M Loop
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.90.940915095653.6615C-100000 at eagle>

A loop does not begin to radiate significant amounts of energy in the 
plane of the wires until the loop circumference is several wavelengths 
long. Somebody modelled such horizontal loops and reported the patterns 
in one of the recent mags (Bill Orr's column, maybe?). Although Orr's claims
for the loop's performance were obviously exagerated (aren't they always?),
he did mention what minimal size was indicated by the modelling 
software to lower the main lobes toward the horizon (I don't remember 
the numbers). Basically, what you have is similar to a VERY small rhombic; as 
you increase the frequency so the circumference becomes a number of 
wavelengths long, the lobes from each wire begin to drop to the horizon. 
However, if you have not also changed the angle of each wire with respect 
to each other, few, if any, of the lobes will add in-phase and the loop 
will have a really messed-up pattern everywhere, with sharp peaks and 
nulls. In addition, if the height is not sufficient (at least a 
half-wavelength), the lobes will not come down far enough to yield 
any significant low-angle radiation.

I used to use such a loop at W6GGV years ago; we fed it with 
open wire line and a tuner. Although it did not work nearly as well as my 
own inverted vees on either 80 or 40, it was convenient being able to use 
it on any band with the tuner. It was a mediocre performer at best on any 
band, however. Height was about 30 feet or so. It did work better than 
the inverted vees sometimes on the local 80 meter traffic nets, which is 
what you would expect since the main lobe was reflecting from the 
ionosphere and back down to the local denizens, effectively giving me 
blanket coverage over the whole Southern California area. But for a 
low-angle radiator, you are a lot better off with any of a half-dozen 
alternatives.

73, Steve KO0U/4