N9ITX/7 M/S CQWW RTTY Score
KS9W at aol.com
KS9W at aol.com
Mon Sep 25 08:29:16 EDT 1995
N9ITX/7 M/S 1995 CQWW RTTY SCORE
Q P QTH DX Z
80 158 172 41 7 6
40 324 409 47 25 20
20 512 970 46 64 26
15 72 98 24 13 11
10 - - - - -
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1066 1653 158 109 63 = 545,490
Operators- N9ITX and VE6KRR
QTH- Lewistown, Montana
73 de Bob ks9w at aol.com
>From Marijan Miletic <s56a at ljutcp.hamradio.si> Mon Sep 25 14:03:59 1995
From: Marijan Miletic <s56a at ljutcp.hamradio.si> (Marijan Miletic)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 13:03:59 UTC
Subject: TS-870 IMD
Message-ID: <85550 at ljutcp.hamradio.si>
It is so nice to see some real data on the first IF DSP rig so soon on
Internet! As tthe TS-870 IMD figures leave a lot to be desired by the
present state of the art, I wonder wether two tones were spaced only 1 kHz?
I hope Dave, W6QHS will enlighten us on the portable parameters used!
73 de Mario, S56A, N1YU.
P.S. Tks USA for 1200+ RTTY QSO this weekend. W3LPL was a beacon while FLA
had a ball on 15m Sunday. It is nice to have K=0 even without sunspots...
>From Skelton, Tom" <TSkelton at engineer.ClemsonSC.ATTGIS.COM Tue Sep 26 17:16:00 1995
From: Skelton, Tom" <TSkelton at engineer.ClemsonSC.ATTGIS.COM (Skelton, Tom)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 09:16:00 PDT
Subject: FW: SS Expeditions
Message-ID: <3066D7DD at admin.ClemsonSC.ATTGIS.COM>
----------
From: sneader
To: cq-contest
Subject: Re: SS Expeditions
Date: Saturday, September 23, 1995 5:12PM
>> [Tree/N6TR] Is anyone planning to go to KP2 for SS CW? It just might be
>> that there will be zero clean sweeps this time around?
>
>With all the abuse that's heaped upon anyone who wins SS from the
Caribbean,
>why would anyone bother? 73. --John/K2MM
Hey... I resemble that remark. :-)
- Scott
<del>
After blasting the naysayers about the MVI dxpedition group having a cell
phone available, I wasn't going to jump on this wagon. However, a point
needs
to be made. Please explain the difference to me between going to the
Caribbean
to compete in Sweepstakes, and going to Aruba or Madeira to compete in CQWW.
In the spirit of contesting, there is none. Case closed.
73, Tom WB4iUX
Tom.Skelton at ClemsonSC.ATTGIS.COM (for 13 more weeks, anyhow)
>From junger at mtn.er.usgs.gov (John Unger) Mon Sep 25 15:13:16 1995
From: junger at mtn.er.usgs.gov (John Unger) (John Unger)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 10:13:16 EDT
Subject: concrete curing
Message-ID: <9509251413.AA23480 at mtn.er.usgs.gov.er.usgs.gov>
This past weekend my 22-year old son and I (he did the
mixing) put in the base for the first tower at my contest
station for the future - yes, I will still have lots of
wire antennas, too...
My question: how long should I let the concrete base cure
before I begin sticking up the tower sections?
tnx es 73 - John, W3GOI
>From sawyers" <sawyers at cacd.rockwell.com Mon Sep 25 17:06:30 1995
From: sawyers" <sawyers at cacd.rockwell.com (sawyers)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 10:06:30 cst
Subject: concrete curing
Message-ID: <9508258120.AA812041644 at ccmgw1.cacd.rockwell.com>
>My question: how long should I let the concrete base cure before I
>begin sticking up the tower sections?
>tnx es 73 - John, W3GOI
Depends on the concrete mix that was used. Special formulations for Highway
usage are ready in a few hours General purpose concrete continues to cure
for 28 days to reach 90-95% of final strength. Generally, in a week you
are at 60-70% of final strength. Best thing is to keep it wet for this long
to help the curing. This because cement cure is via hydration (the taking
up of water into the material).
de N0YVY Steve Sawyers PE.
My company and I agree on at least one thing: The opinions I express are my
own.
>From David & Barbara Leeson <0005543629 at mcimail.com> Mon Sep 25 17:04:00 1995
From: David & Barbara Leeson <0005543629 at mcimail.com> (David & Barbara Leeson)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 11:04 EST
Subject: TS870 IMD
Message-ID: <05950925160450/0005543629NA2EM at MCIMAIL.COM>
Ah, the absent-minded professor forgot to say what the frequency spacing
was. It was 12.5 kHz at 7.18 MHz, because that's the two crystal frequencies
I dug out of my junk box many years ago. The tester is just two XO's with
a lot of isolation in the resistive combiner, then a high-quality 110 dB
switched attenuator, plus a DVM for audio level measurement (not RMS but
seems to give reasonable results). The whole thing is a lot easier to
carry around than a pair of HP sig gens! Sorry for the oversight (it won't
be on the final exam).
73, Dave W6QHS
>From sellington" <sellington at mail.ssec.wisc.edu Mon Sep 25 17:24:16 1995
From: sellington" <sellington at mail.ssec.wisc.edu (sellington)
Date: 25 Sep 1995 11:24:16 -0500
Subject: A peak at the TS-870
Message-ID: <n1400094206.43234 at mail.ssec.wisc.edu>
I'm waiting to see what the close-in IMD and blocking dynamic range turn
out to be. If they're as good as a receiver with good crystal filters,
Kenwood knows some DSP tricks I'm not aware of.
Scott K9MA
sellington at ssec.wisc.edu
>From Jeff Singer <k0od at MO.NET> Mon Sep 25 18:52:12 1995
From: Jeff Singer <k0od at MO.NET> (Jeff Singer)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 12:52:12 -0500
Subject: TS-870 noise reduction claim
Message-ID: <199509251752.MAA08670 at Walden.MO.NET>
I just phoned the advertising manager of QST about Kenwood's TS-870 ad
in the October QST that says: "Imagine over 100 db of noise reduction
with no signal loss!"
He said there have been some concerns voiced about the claim, and the
League's technical people are reviewing the matter now. He added that the
100db noise reduction claim will be dropped from the next issue if the
League feels the ad is misleading. The League has a TS-870 to test.
-----------------------------
Jeff K0OD St. Louis, MO USA
e-mail: k0od at mo.net
-----------------------------
>From floydjr at nr.infi.net (jim floyd) Mon Sep 25 18:56:55 1995
From: floydjr at nr.infi.net (jim floyd) (jim floyd)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 13:56:55 -0400
Subject: Scores
Message-ID: <199509251756.NAA08293 at larry.infi.net>
CQWW RTTY CLAIMED SCORES 1995
Compiled by
WA4ZXA
------------------------------------------------------
OPERATOR CLASS SCORE
------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE OP/HP ALL BAND
N4CC 710,940
W3GG (Assist or Un> 302,872
W7LZP 256,563
SINGLE OP/LP ALL BAND
WA4ZXA 295,948
SINGLE OP/ASSISTED
OH2LU 158,388
SINGLE OP/SINGLE BAND
10 Meters/HP
10 Meters/LP
15 Meters/HP
15 Meters/LP
20 Meters/HP
20 Meters/LP
40 Meters/HP
WF5E 53,954
KN6DV (HPorLP) 46,552
40 Meters/LP
80 Meters/HP
80 Meters/LP
MULTI OP/HP SINGLE TRANSMITTER
Jim Moore <Need Call> 1,388,862
N9TIX/7 <HP or LP> 545,490
MULTI OP/LP SINGLE TRANSMITTER
MULTI OP/MULTI TRANSMITTER
I do realize this is a little sketchy but it is all I have for now.
You do not need to send me any files, just your raw scores. If you
wish you can post it to the reflector also. I have nothing to do
with the official scores. Some sent me mail in regard on how to sub-
mit logs. I will let CQ explain all that. This is only to give you
an idea of maybe how everyone did.
Also you will notice beside some calls a <>. This is a request for
more info about your score. Whatever is inside is what I need to put
you in the right class. If I did not know this info I put you in the
higher class. Just send me email to correct it.
Keep'em coming.
73's Jim // WA4ZXA @N4ZC <> floydjr at nr.infi.net
ps: Remember if you send me your breakdown I cannot repost them on
the reflector. If you wish for everyone to see the breakdown you will
need to send them to the reflector yourself.
>From junger at mtn.er.usgs.gov (John Unger) Mon Sep 25 20:05:13 1995
From: junger at mtn.er.usgs.gov (John Unger) (John Unger)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 15:05:13 EDT
Subject: concrete curing - summary
Message-ID: <9509251905.AA23980 at mtn.er.usgs.gov.er.usgs.gov>
Thanks guys....
This group is a great and speedy resource. There was
a range of answers to my question, but I did sense a
general concensus that one week of curing gave concrete about
50-70% of its final strength. There are variations depending
on the type of mix (I should have specified that I used 80lb
bags of dried concrete mix, i.e., "Sakrete"-type material),
temperature, and moisture. Almost everyone stated that it
takes 21-28 days for concrete to achieve 90-95% of its final
strength, and that the strength vs. time curing curve is
asymptotic.
I would like to thank all of you who responded to my query.
tnx es 73 - John, W3GOI
>From Setzler" <setzler at c813.npt.nuwc.navy.mil Mon Sep 25 16:11:28 1995
From: Setzler" <setzler at c813.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Setzler)
Date: 25 Sep 1995 15:11:28 U
Subject: Summary: EWE vs Short Beverage
Message-ID: <n1400080841.41265 at c813.npt.nuwc.navy.mil>
The original question:
I know we exercised the topic a bit this summer, but until I get a lot more
property I can't run the parallel 580' Beverages towards Europe. What I can
run is about 200'.
Opinions requested: Would it be better to have a 200' Beverage or EWE for
80/160??
.......................................................
The responses:
I had a 280 'short' beverage last year and also had a EWE that I tried. They
both work. The EWE seemed better to EU but the Beverage was more towards
Africa than EU. The limited modeling I've done shows a short beverage is
better than NO beverage. I plan to have at least 3 EWE this season PLUS the
short bev. The key is winding the transformers on good cores and getting a
good match. ....................... W8CAR
.......................................................
I'm also wondering which antenna would be best for an acre lot. Have done
some modelling with EZNEC and I think a EWE might be best, especially for use
on both bands. .......................K0OD
.......................................................
I run two shorty beverages though fairly dense forest during the winter. They
are 300ft long. I find this short length even to be very effective. As might
be expected, they are better on 80 than 160, but there's very little that I
can't copy on top band due to noise. I haven't put up an EWE nor one of the
K6STI loops yet, but they look simple enough to do both or all three and
compare. I suspect over a period of time you would see that each might be
superior at a given time.........K7SV
.......................................................
I put up a EWE antenna and I also am constantly comparing it against the other
guys on the cluster who have beverages and it's my opinion that a EWE is
better than nothing but at no time compares to a beverage. There are lots of
variables and this may factor in but I am comparing to guys with beverages
laying in drainage ditches who hear better. I even checked the sensitivity of
my receiver just to make sure it wasn't a problem on my end... For a guy
who lives on a city lot 100x120 and wants to have a receive antenna on 160
then the EWE is the only choice..but make no mistake there is no free lunch
and a EWE can't compare to a beverage...in my
opinion........................K9SD
********************************************************
So, the reviews are a bit mixed. Something is definitely better than nothing.
But it seems to be a toss up as to whether the EWE is better than a short
Beverage. Looks like more field data on the EWE is needed.
I'm re-working the Beverages at K1NG for the season. Most of them are around
200' or so. I hope to install a EWE in line with the European Beverage using
the KA2WVL 80/160 compromise dimensions (15'*38'*15') terminated with 840
ohms. I'm connecting through K2ZJ's Beverage Box for impedance matching and
preamplification. We'll see (or better yet: hear) what happens when the EWE
is compared to the Beverages during CQWW. If the EWE's seem to play OK at
John's, I'll install a few at KD1NG as well.
Thanks for the inputs.
73 James KD1NG >> setzler at c813.npt.nuwc.navy.mil <<
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list