Climbing equipment

K7LXC at K7LXC at
Fri Apr 12 14:12:42 EDT 1996

In a message dated 96-04-12 12:25:53 EDT, you write:
>I raised two questions before and would like to ask them again: what's a
>Klein rig cost, and do you have any opinion on the ONV harness recently
>advertised in QST or CQ--don't quite remember--?
Hiya, Joe --

    Glad you got the articles; hope you got something out of them.

    Sorry if I neglected to respond to your question.  When you say Klein
rig, do you mean a fall arrest harness or just a waist belt?  Texas Towers
apparently has a few belts left but I would also consider some type of
harness if I was looking for something now.  I just got a Klein harness and
it was about $150.00 but returned it when I found out I couldn't put any tool
bags on it.  It had a seat harness too.  There are several manufacturers of
harnesses (Miller, DBI-Sala) besides Klein who tends to be the most
expensive.  Try your local yellow pages under safety equipment for a local
supplier.  Get their catalog or better yet go visit them and try a couple on.

     That's the short answer.  The long answer is that I am working with a
local company to have them come out with an LXC custom harness for amateurs
with all the stuff on it that I feel it should have.  

    As far as the ONV belt, it meets OSHA construction but not use standards.
 It's okay but a Klein would be a better investment.  BTW, ONV has an
accessory tool pouch that goes on the front of the belt and has a nasty habit
of swinging back and forth as you climb resulting in rude whacks to private
areas.  A pretty poor design if you ask me.

    Here's an option you can think about.  Buy a good waist belt and then
wear it OVER your fall arrest harness.  A lightweight fall arrest harness  is
$40-50.00 at those same safety suppliers.  My next "up The Tower" column has
some additional harness topics; if you're interested I can send you a copy of
it via post office. 

73 and let me know if I can provide any more perspective,  Steve   K7LXC

>From Rich L. Boyd" <rlboyd at  Fri Apr 12 18:02:16 1996
From: Rich L. Boyd" <rlboyd at (Rich L. Boyd)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:02:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: W3A this wkend
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91-FP.960412125501.14817A-100000 at>

Some PVRCers and others will be activating W3A this weekend, a special 
event station from the National Academy of Science in Washington, D.C., 
celebrating 100 years of radio and 75 years of radio network broadcasting.

The station will be two HF positionss plus VHF/UHF/packet, operating from 
the Academy's Great Hall.  The antennas, on the roof, an A3 on a "rocket 
launcher" type mast seen at hamfests, with inverted vees for 80 and 40 
and VHF/UHF antennas on top of the mast.

As far as I know this is the first time a 1X1 call has been given out in 
the U.S., at least in many years.

W3IDT, a professor at GWU and involved with the Academy, put this 
together.  KO7V has recruited most of the operators.  Some of the ops 
will be W3IDT, KO7V, K3TM, WD3Q, possibly KF3P and N3KTV, and no doubt a 
number of others.

This was given final go-aheads only recently, hence very little in the 
way of advance publicity in the magazines and so on, but ARRL, I'm told, 
is supporting it with a booth, etc.

So get on and help create a pileup, spot it on your packetcluster, etc. 
to give the guys a good time.  FCC commissioners and other dignitiaries 
are expected to observe from time to time over the course of the 
weekend.  And, the event will be open to the public although confirmation 
of times-certain, etc. was not available.  Non-U.S. readers of this 
message, please feel free to publicize this on your local packetclusters, 
etc. at this late date.


Rich Boyd KE3Q

>From Hans Brakob <71111.260 at CompuServe.COM>  Fri Apr 12 18:34:18 1996
From: Hans Brakob <71111.260 at CompuServe.COM> (Hans Brakob)
Date: 12 Apr 96 13:34:18 EDT
Subject: Contest Free Zone
Message-ID: <960412173418_71111.260_EHM139-1 at CompuServe.COM>

Bill Fisher, KM9P said:

>Absolutely NOT.   You have obviously not operated a phone contest 
>seriously lately. <


Your thoughtful comments are welcome (that's what the reflector is 
all about), but condescending remarks such as "You have obviously 
not....." are UNwelcome. 

I have simply opened a topic for discussion, and certainly there 
will be viewpoints which do not agree with mine. Perhaps a well
reasoned argument might even convince me that I had a bad idea.
Gentlemen can disagree without being disagreeable.

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: Just for info, I have a number of 1st place certificates and 
plaques on my wall won in the past 5 years, including "phone 
weekend" versions. I'll accept that as "serious" and "recent".

>From aa4lr at (Bill Coleman AA4LR)  Fri Apr 12 19:10:09 1996
From: aa4lr at (Bill Coleman AA4LR) (Bill Coleman AA4LR)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 14:10:09 -0400
Subject: Contest Catagories
Message-ID: <v01540b05ad9444456a93@[]>

>I have been most impressed with the big guns on the reflector talking about
>their stations, but most of the people contesting has not spent the amount
>of dollars in equipment and antennas.

Amen. So we'd best respect the hard work that has gone into their setups
and acknowledge that achievement, even if we can't do it ourselves.

>For instance, back in 1980 and 81, I won SS in multi-op with a TS820, SB220,
>a TH6 and a TH3 with dipoles for 80 and 40.  That is today a modest station.

TWO tribanders? Modest? I think not. Modest is a single all-band dipole.
Preferably low. Modest is nothing but a Hustler vertical clamped to the
outside railing. (Just as Kok!)

>Question:  Should contest be configured to allow for classes of stations?
>ie;  Dreadnought Stations - Magnum Stations - Super Stations - Howitzer
>Stations - Shotgun Stations - Popgun Stations - BB-Gun Stations - Peanut
>Whistle Stations.

I think this is a very difficult proposition. There are two key problems.
First, coming up with an equitable set of classifications. Power is an easy
classifier, since it is readily measurable. So is the number of operators.
Number of transmitters isn't even so clear. (I still go apoplectic thinking
that a M/S operation has more than one transmitter - ARGH!) Basing
classification on antennas or other equipment is difficult because there's
so many possibilities.

Second, with the level of activity within even the most popular of
contests, you're not going to get enough entries to fill the categories. So
why not just mail everyone who sends in a log with a certificate and say
"you've won!"

If you look at other competitive events, like aircraft racing, you have
unlimited categories and various restricted categories -- some dictating a
particular model of plane, others just dictating parameters. (T-6 racing
versus Formula-1)

But the total number of categories are few. That, I believe is the key.
Define enough categories so that there's an acceptable level of competition
within the category. But no more.

Based on where we already are, efforts to define station categories should
focus on trying to give recognition to those with achievements so far
unrecognised. Who would those people be?

>Lets see if some of you bright boys out there can come up with a formula to
>determine the catagory.  For example:
>tower =                 1 point per foot (for all towers)
>Computer =              500 points

A computer is worth 5 100' towers? I don't think so....

>Should we also provide divisions for computer assisted or non computer
>assisted stations?  memory keyer or no memory keyer stations?  (I do not
>want to dupe ever again, so you won't see me there!)

No. and No. I think the computer is becoming integral with contesting. Look
at the photos of contest stations in the results. Most have a monitor front
and center. Are there lots of unrecognised paper-and-pencil efforts out
there? I don't think so either. (Not that there aren't people doing this --
I just don't believe the true acheivements go unrecognised. Not everyone
who "wins" is using a computer)

>How about a division in multi-op catagories.  Multi-op high power, multi-op
>low power ( I would like to see this in SS).  Multi-op is not only fun, but
>it gives a chance to train other hams in contest operations.

Question -- in SS, say, are there enough multi-op entrants that subdividing
the multi-operator category would recognize significant acheivements? In
Georgia, we typically get two or three multi-op entries for SS. That's not
a terrible lot, but there probably aren't more than a couple of dozen
within an entire division.

>Remember guys, this is only to get the discussion going.  Don't take it

Not at all. I just think more thought has to go into any new categories.
Further consideration must be given to how a category may affect a station
design. (For example, if I put up a 2 element 40m antenna, I'm no longer in
the CQ TS category but instead competing with all the "big boys". (Never
mind that my tribander is currently in the garage))

Bill Coleman, AA4LR      Mail: aa4lr at
Quote: "Not in a thousand years will man ever fly!"
            -- Wilbur Wright, 1901

>From aa4lr at (Bill Coleman AA4LR)  Fri Apr 12 19:10:13 1996
From: aa4lr at (Bill Coleman AA4LR) (Bill Coleman AA4LR)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 14:10:13 -0400
Subject: Contest Free Zones
Message-ID: <v01540b07ad94498ea8cd@[]>

>Most of the commentary posted here on this subject has tended to
>"Its our right....  they can just go to CW (or phone, or WARC, or
>whatever the contesters arent doing this weekend.)"

Point is -- the uncluttered spectrum is out there. Contest rules prohibit
contestors from using it -- so not non-contesting population ought to take
advantage of it.

>In real life, however, it is analogous to the organizers of the
>Boston Marathon saying "We are running our race once a month on most
>of the main streets, and the rest of you folks will just have to
>take some back streets, or change your mode of travel on those
>weekends." How long would it be before the citizens of Boston would
>convince the city council to outlaw marathons?

I don't see the similarity. Boston streets are primarily used for
automotive traffic, not running.

There's more similarity with conflicting use of a public park. For example,
if you want to go to Grant park in Atlanta for a quiet picnic April 20-21.
Good luck. That just happens to be the same that thousands of college
students decend on Atlanta for an enormous street party. If you had any
sense, you'd go out to Lenora park far away from this action. Just because
you've been going to Grant Park every weekend for 20 years makes no

>Personally, as a contester, I think it is time that we seriously
>consider some voluntary plan which will make us less obnoxious to
>other users of the band on contest weekends, regardless of our
>"rights" to be so.

I have a problem with this. If contestors agree to do this, what do we get
in return? If there's going to be contest-free spectrum, should there not
also be contest-only spectrum?

I suppose my realization here is there is ALREADY contest-free spectrum,
but people aren't using it. The complainers are only satisfied if THEIR
spectrum is contest-free.

>Yes, there will be some non-contesters who will
>complain that "their" net/ragchew frequency was disrupted no matter
>what we do, but at least we will be able to point to some "safe
>haven" on each band where they can chat with Uncle Jim in East

But Hans, we have that today. We can tell them to move to 17m. Do you think
they'll move? They haven't so far.

>PS: I really do want to discuss this, but any response blindly
>"waving their rights" will be ignored.

If you could guarantee that the allocation of contest-prohibited spectrum
would end intentional interference to contesting activties in the
contest-allowed spectrum, I think we'd all go for it.

Otherwise, it is just going to push our activity into a smaller spectrum,
which is actually going to make the problem WORSE, not better.

Bill Coleman, AA4LR      Mail: aa4lr at
Quote: "Not in a thousand years will man ever fly!"
            -- Wilbur Wright, 1901

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list