Losing The Peace
K8DO at aol.com
K8DO at aol.com
Tue Dec 19 10:31:30 EST 1995
The January issue of QST, pg 25, has an insightful letter from WA6TBP and I
urge you to read it... This is a topic which I have addressed on this
reflector before and which I feel is of crucial importance... We have given
away the ability to manufacture literally everything... The plants are
gone... The tool makers are gone... The stamping presses are gone (they went
to japan as scrap steel for pennies a pound, and returned as parts in a $1000
I read the postings on here daily about the new "1000 this", and "785 that"
was just put into service in someones contest station, and I feel sick... Two
hundred and eighty million people in this country, and we have one
manufacturer of contest grade transceivers left... It is a good radio... It
is well engineered and capable... But, the vast majority of you send your
money to Japan, depriving our companies of the cash flow necessary to develop
the next generation of american manufactured radios...
So prop QST up against your radio from the land of ten thousand knobs, and
read Dr. Davis' letter... And when you are done I want you to write to me and
explain how you think the next generation of american transceivers are
supposed to get designed, engineered and manufactured..
.Denny ... K8DO k8do at aol.com
>From snace at wsc.nasa.gov (Steve Nace) Tue Dec 19 15:32:53 1995
From: snace at wsc.nasa.gov (Steve Nace) (Steve Nace)
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 08:32:53 -0700
Subject: UA1P/Zone numbers
K3EST & K1KI write:
>>It was just noticed that CT's .CTY file for the CQWW has UA1P in
>>the wrong zone. All UA1's are in zone 16. None are zone 17.
>>Tks to N6AA
>Bob/K3EST: Are you sure? My notes from several years ago when I was a
>serious oblast chaser show that UA1P is in both zone 16 and 17.
>I don't have an "official" CQ zone map but my trusty old Kenwood laminated CQ
>zone map agrees with me, and so does the ARRL Operating Manual.
Here's an idea. The DX station is going to send his zone when he works you!
de Hose KN5H
>From aa4lr at radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR) Tue Dec 19 15:13:48 1995
From: aa4lr at radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR) (Bill Coleman AA4LR)
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 11:13:48 -0400
Subject: Signal Reports
>>I truely believe all contests should completely and utterly do
>>away with all signal report exchanges. Replace them with a
>>sequential serial number or a power level. The 59 or 5NN is
>Absolutely, positively redundant. One other nice thing about VHF
>contests, never having to tell some puny weak guy he's "59".
>(True for Sprints, NAQP, SS, Field Day as well).
Notice all these contests are domestic or semi-domestic events. Hmmm....
>However no contest rules say you have to send 59/599. All they
>say is a signal report. In fact, if you read the CQWW rules they
>use the examples of 5705/57905.
>What's so bad about sending 57 or 579? Or any other report? On
>average 57(9) is a more accurate report than 59(9). Put a little
>entropy into the world, and give the hotshots something
>nonredundant to copy and log.
The problem is simple. If you send out a report other than 59(9), then you
have to log what you sent as well as what you receive. That more than
increases the workload. Contesters figured out long ago that if they just
send 59(9), that is one less thing for them to worry about. (Plus, it is
one less thing to try to judge for each QSO)
>Until contest sponsors eliminate the signal report, if you're not
>part of the solution you're part of the problem.
I'm not asking them to eliminate the signal report, but replace it with
something more meaningful.
Bill Coleman, AA4LR Mail: aa4lr at radio.org
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -- Steve
More information about the CQ-Contest