V31DX Web Site for CQWW SSB

jdowning at intelenet.net jdowning at intelenet.net
Wed Aug 30 11:58:28 EDT 1995


The Cuba Libre Contest Club is at it again.  After a nice long chat with Bob, 
KK6EK, who is managing the upcoming Easter Island project we decided that many 
of his ideas regarding the integration of ham radio and the Net have 
considerable merit...so we will shamelessly appropriate some of them for the 
upcomming CQWW SSB Contest.  We will have a high bandwidth Web site set up 
prior to the contest.  Bill, WA9L, the original Cuba Libre Contest Club 
member, is supplying the site within his www.calsoft.com domain (check out his 
site, his Web browser is serious stuff!).  Peter, VE3SUN/W6, author of QRATE 
and inventor of the Magic Notch filter, another Cuba Libre Contester, is 
authoring the site.  As we set up our station in Belize we'll upload pictures 
of our location on the beach at Ambergris Caye, Belize.  Might even include a 
few babe shots for KA9FOX!  During the contest we will upload our raw log 
hourly to the Web site so you can check our progress and marvel at our Q rate 
and guffaw at our lack of multipliers!  

Last year we were seventh WW in points (just missed the box, shoot) but third 
WW in Qs in the CQWW (Multi-Single).  For the last three years we have been 
top NA score and second WW in the ARRL SSB (yeah, I know, it's not a REAL DX 
contest.)  So we can run up a fair number of Qs.

We will also include a QSL request server at the site.  Just Cut and Paste 
your log entry into the server and we'll send you a card.  We have many 
thousands already and don't really want yours.  Our QSL manager does accept 
donations so feel free to send green stamps.

We will post our URL and more details as we work them out.

Does this constitute some sort of backdoor approach to spotting?  I think not. 
Could you check or logs for DX that we worked in the last hour to chase 
yourself?  Yeah, but the DX probably called us!  What we are attempting to do 
is combine some of the exitement of Contesting and the global nature of the 
Web (call it computer DX) and add something to the technique and fine art of 
DX contesting.  Automation of the QSL process is a start.

Your ideas?  

Regards to all, 

John N6YRU, Bill WA9L, Peter VE3SUN, and Vic KI6IM, the Cuba Libre Contest 

V31DX V31DX V31DX V31DX V31DX V31DX V31DX 

>From pduff at wizards.austin.ibm.com (Phill Duff)  Wed Aug 30 20:02:27 1995
From: pduff at wizards.austin.ibm.com (Phill Duff) (Phill Duff)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 13:02:27 -0600
Subject: K6STI's Low Noise Loops
Message-ID: <9508301802.AA12198 at wizards.austin.ibm.com>

Given past reflector discussions about the use of the EWE antenna, 
beverages, etc. for contest and DX'ing usage, I'm surprised at the lack
of discussion regarding K6STI's Low Noise Loop articles in the
latest QST.

Several stations in the Central Texas area are planning the 
construction of these loops and I'm wondering what the thoughts of
any others might be with regards to K6STI's design.

Has anyone else built one?  Benefits/results?  

 73 de Phil NA4M

Phil Duff  NA4M                  (512) 838-3579                        
IBM AIX/6000  Austin, Texas       Internet: pduff at wizards.austin.ibm.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My opinion, not IBM's~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>From lvn at fox.cen.com (Larry Novak)  Wed Aug 30 19:46:52 1995
From: lvn at fox.cen.com (Larry Novak) (Larry Novak)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 14:46:52 EDT
Subject: Antenna Question(s)
Message-ID: <9508301846.AA09898 at cen.com>

> present setup.  I'd really appreciate help from you modelling gurus, but I'll
> consider SWAGs also.  Thanks in advance.

  Well, I'm not a modelling guru, but I have looked at loops. My
  conclusion, at least for a 40 meter loop at heights lower than about
  50-60 feet, is that you're better off with a dipole. The
  generally-held idea that a loop has 1-2 dB gain over a dipole is
  really 1-2 dB gain over a dipole at "the effective height" of the
  loop. It is not true if they are both at the same height. e.g.,

	 ----------       -------- --------
     \        /               |
      \      /                |
       \    /                 |
        \  /                  |
         \/                   |

  This loop is not as good at the dipole, but

     \        /
      \      /        -------- ---------    <<- effective ht. of loop
       \    /                 |
        \  /                  |
         \/                   |

  This loop is better than the dipole. Howver, if you can get the loop
  up that high, you'd have to be really wierd to put the dipole lower.
  There may be some cases, however, where you don't have the space for a
  dipole, but you do have space for the loop. 

  In spite of what I see in the modelling, many people think loops do
  better than dipoles. I've never had one, so I can't say.


 + VISIT THE INSULATOR COLLECTOR'S HOME PAGE:                               +
 +                                 http://www.resilience.com/insulators/     +
 | Larry Novak                    \-\-\             email:   lnovak at cen.com |
 | Century Computing                |                 Tel:   (301) 953-3330 |
 | 8101 Sandy Spring Road           |          Tel (@NRL):   (202) 404-7682 |
 | Laurel, MD 20707                 |                 Fax:   (301) 953-2368 |
 | http://www.cen.com/              |       Amateur Radio:    K3TLX, C6AHE  |

>From R. Torsten Clay" <torsten at mephisto.physics.uiuc.edu  Wed Aug 30 20:22:14 1995
From: R. Torsten Clay" <torsten at mephisto.physics.uiuc.edu (R. Torsten Clay)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 14:22:14 CDT
Subject: Antenna Question(s)
Message-ID: <199508301922.AA06029 at mephisto.physics.uiuc.edu>

	Being mostly a wire antenna person, I've thought a lot about the loop/
dipole choice.  My current choice is to go with the dipole, the reason being 
that I use it on multiple bands (a 95 foot flat-top dipole up 65 ft), 80-10m.
With the dipole, the pattern is fairly predictable; however, with the loop,
unless the feedpoint is moved for different bands, or the loop opened up on
some bands, the pattern can get pretty funky with weird high-angle stuff.
	However, for single-band 80m, I think a rectangular loop would be much 
better for low-angle performance (there's one for 160m modeled in Low Band 
DXing).  For 40m, 65 ft is high enough that horizontal wires begin to perform

_____________________       ________________
         |                  |              |
         |                  |              |
         |  65'             X              | 
         |                  |              |
         |                  |              |
80m angle:
 ~straight up                  30 deg

n4ogw at uiuc.edu

>From n4zr at ix.netcom.com (Pete Smith)  Wed Aug 30 20:54:33 1995
From: n4zr at ix.netcom.com (Pete Smith) (Pete Smith)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 12:54:33 -0700
Subject: YTAD.ZIP
Message-ID: <199508301954.MAA04849 at ix9.ix.netcom.com>

Earlier, I told the reflector of my skepticism about YTAD results for my
QTH.  While my question resulted in Dean's finding and fixing a small bug in
the software, in fact I was misinterpreting the graphical results I was
seeing. If the model is precisely describing reality, the entire pattern is
shifting upward slightly because of my gradually sloping foreground.  It
does have a disproportionate effect on the very low elevation angle where
the notch appears, because of that shift, not because of the depth of the
notch per se, which is what I found intuitively unlikely.

Thanks, Dean!

73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr at ix.netcom.com 
WEST Virginia

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list