10 Meter Novice "Contest Free" Zone

[w2xx at cloud9.net]

Greetings:

Just a brief correction is in order here.  The ARRL's Contest Free
Zone (CFZ) is in effect ONLY for the ARRL 10 Meter Contest.  There
is no CFZ in the ARRL International DX Contest.

I agree that it is unfortunate that the new LU novice privileges
allow operating on 28300-28350 for contests only.  That was NOT
the case over one year ago when the CFZ was instituted.

The point might be made as to why the LU govt. did not check with
contest organizers before making such a decision.  In any case,
it would seem that a contest-only segment for LU novices is more
effective in the 28500 area where in my experience more contest
activity takes place.

As a bit of background information, the 10 Meter CFZ was accepted
(not proposed) by the ARRL CAC as a trade-off for allowing club
competition during the ARRL 10 Meter Contest.

Very 73,

J.P. Kleinhaus, W2XX
Chairman ARRL CAC


J.P. Kleinhaus, W2XX  (fdba AA2DU)
E-mail:  w2xx at cloud9.net

It's not a bug...It's a feature!?



>From gswanson at arrl.org (Swanson, Glenn,  KB1GW)  Tue Dec  3 20:41:00 1996
From: gswanson at arrl.org (Swanson, Glenn,  KB1GW) (Swanson, Glenn,  KB1GW)
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 15:41:00 -0500
Subject: Pig farmers are OK!
Message-ID: <m0vV1dx-000fETC at mgate.arrl.org>


 How about: Porkers!

>Pork, the other white meat!
 ----------
>From: Jeff Tucker

>Call them what they are.  Lids, jerks, grouchy old men who need to
>get a life.  Just don't malign the American pork producer (a.k.a.
>pig farmer.)
>
>Thanks for reading.
>73, Jeff N9HZQ
>
>Pork, the other white meat!
>(This message was NOT brought to you by the IL Pork Producers
>Association.)  Hey, did I miss the U of I football game they sponsor
>each year?  If not, how about a free ticket?
>
>
>
> --
>Jeff Tucker, N9HZQ
>Williams Consulting, Inc.
>jefft at atlanta.com
>
>

>From n0ss at socketis.net (Tom Hammond)  Tue Dec  3 21:42:42 1996
From: n0ss at socketis.net (Tom Hammond) (Tom Hammond)
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 15:42:42 -0600
Subject: MY WEALTHY CONTESING PALS
Message-ID: <199612032142.PAA10894 at mail.socketis.net>

At 03:20 PM 12/3/96 EST, you wrote:

>Based on this (and a lot of previous lessons!) I'd say Ron 
>has about 10.003dB more skill than I do, and I don't think he 
>purchased those 10.003dB on his Visa card.

VERY well put!  And, you're right (as many other are)...
you can't work em if YOU can't work em... (stolen from
the old "you can't work em if you can't hear em" story.

73 - Tom Hammond   N0SS


>From tomf at neca.com (Tom Francis)  Tue Dec  3 21:16:41 1996
From: tomf at neca.com (Tom Francis) (Tom Francis)
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 16:16:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Paper logs vs computers
Message-ID: <199612032116.QAA00489 at orion.neca.com>

Hi all:

These threads about technology, skills, etc.,
have me very curious about something - to wit:

1 - How many reflectorites still use paper logs?
    (I know this seems like a stupid question because
     if you have email, you have a computer, but the
     possibility exists.)

2 - How many reflectorites use computers for just
    logging?

3 - How many reflectorites use computers for all
    the goodies (keying, logging, band maps, rates,
    post-contest critiques, radio-control, etc.)?

Please, if you want to participate in this NM1Q (a
ham who has lots of time of his hands at the moment)
unofficial survey, reply direct to me and I'll
summarize for the group - keep the bandwidth low.

Not sure what this is going to prove, but it might
prove something to somebody.

Thanks for your time.

73

Tom, NM1Q (tomf at neca.com)


>From rrossi at btv.ibm.com (Ronald D Rossi)  Tue Dec  3 21:39:09 1996
From: rrossi at btv.ibm.com (Ronald D Rossi) (Ronald D Rossi)
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 16:39:09 -0500
Subject: 10 Meter Novice "Contest Free" Zone
Message-ID: <9612032139.AA21286 at btv.ibm.com>

>>>w2xx at cloud9.net said:
...
> As a bit of background information, the 10 Meter CFZ was accepted
> (not proposed) by the ARRL CAC as a trade-off for allowing club
> competition during the ARRL 10 Meter Contest.
> 

Trade offs involve opposites.  I am unclear how these two points would be in 
opposition and therefore why any trade off was made anyway?

-- 
73 de KK1L ex N1PBT...ron (rrossi at btv.ibm.com) <><
Ron Rossi H/P SRAM Engineering -- IBM Microelectronics









>From aa4lr at radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR)  Tue Dec  3 21:48:44 1996
From: aa4lr at radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR) (Bill Coleman AA4LR)
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 96 16:48:44 -0500
Subject: 10 Meter Novice "Contest Free" Zone
Message-ID: <961103164843.QAA15823 at gate.iterated.com>

>From:        w2xx at cloud9.net
>
>As a bit of background information, the 10 Meter CFZ was accepted
>(not proposed) by the ARRL CAC as a trade-off for allowing club
>competition during the ARRL 10 Meter Contest.

Trade-off with whom? Seems the ARRL would be in a fine position to add 
club competition to the 10m test without having to "trade-off" anything 
to anyone.

CFZs seem ill-advised, at best. We'll have to see how this one works out.



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


>From rocker at datasync.com (Ray Rocker)  Tue Dec  3 21:53:42 1996
From: rocker at datasync.com (Ray Rocker) (Ray Rocker)
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 15:53:42 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Contesting and the Internet
Message-ID: <199612032153.PAA13967 at osh1.datasync.com>

> My point is that be cultivating a friend in a part of the world where YOU
> CAN win the Contest, by using the Internet, you DONT EVEN HAVE TO BE THERE -
> and that surely is wrong.   You dont even need your own rig just a PC.
> Ham radio contesting is in danger of being swamped by its own technology -
> and I for one would like to see the interconnection between rigs AND the
> internet banned.

I think it's pretty exciting. It would be thrilling to be able to 
remotely operate a station in P4 (or W1 :)) land during CQWW. Why should 
that be disallowed if the only radios I use are at the remote location?

What I think you were getting at is people using remote transmitters
under their OWN callsign and QSOs added to their own score. Of course,
that shouldn't be allowed under the current rules. Don't they already 
have rules for multi-transmitter operations specifying a geographic 
radius within which all transmitters must fall? Maybe I am thinking 
of Field Day. I seem to remember some flap about this in the IARU test.

Maybe a "single-multi-multi" class will need to be added one day. 
Single op, multi transmitter, multi station. Imagine that, having 
to not only decide what band to be on and what antenna to use, 
but which station to use -- the one in W5, EA8, LU, or JA. Wow! 
Now THAT will take skill.

-- Ray, WQ5L

>From jfitz at albany.net (Joe Fitzgerald)  Tue Dec  3 22:41:56 1996
From: jfitz at albany.net (Joe Fitzgerald) (Joe Fitzgerald)
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 17:41:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <199612032241.RAA01520 at keeper.albany.net>

At 11:49 PM 12/2/96 GMT, you wrote:
>The more I dabble into the Internet the more I worry about the future of
>Contesting.  Things used to be really simple in the old days.   You just got
>hold of the mike and hollered CQ CONTEST and started scribing with the
>pencil.   

We have heard a similar argument for years in NASCAR and other auto racing
fields.  As technology advances, so does the complexity of the hardware
required to compete.  There are still guys out there that race steam powered
cars, and Model T's, and whatever.  But they are hardly considered
mainstream racers.


>However, WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?    Contesting has now become a contest
>not of skill in operating, but a contest as to who can pour the greatest
>amount of money into a station.

I couldn't disagree more.  Just look at the results of WRTC.  Stations were
similar.  The results were not. And these were all top notch operators.  If
money and technology are so critical to winning, why do the top single op
unassisted scores always seem to be higher than the assisted ones?   

> Gee, if you cannot operate from your
>own backyard, just go down to the Caribbean...  

And what is wrong with that?  I just got back from J3, after contributing
2.7 million points to my club.  Are you suggesting that I must own a back
yard to play contest?  If so, I would have to plunk down $100,000, just to
get started - before I bought my first tower section.

>
>I would like to draw a firm line under Internet.   Just by dabbling into the
>Web and looking at various facilities and programs that are CURRENTLY
>available, not to mention the future, it seems just a matter of time before
>someone is caught cheating, by connecting via the Internet to another
>location in the World.   With telnet, real audio, so on and so forth, it is
>just a matter of time until you can seriously operate a remote transmitter
>anywhere in the world via your own home PC.

And what is wrong with this?  CQWW rules require that all transmitters and
receiver s must be within a 500m radius or the limits of the station owners
property.  It says nothing about the location of the operator(s).  This is
how it should be.  Remote control of radios has been feasible for quite a
while now. The Internet is just one more way to accomplish it.

>Guys are operating their
>HF rigs via 2m links, why not via an Internet link?    IT IS ONLY A MATTER
>OF TIME.
>

Remote control of radios via the Internet is old news.  I control my rig
from my computer now through a 6 foot serial cable.  Is there a difference
if that cable is 6 miles long?  600?  6000?  I don't think so. The Internet
is just a long cable.

I have spent many hours thinking about a remote controlled station of my
own. Yes, there is a cost associated with this project, which is the primary
reason I haven't done it yet. But if I were to build a station in, say,
Pakistan, and control it via the Internet (or satellite link, dedicated
phone line, semaphore, etc.)  I believe that I am well within the rules,
both in letter and intent.


-Joe Fitzgerald KM1P