A CW Confession - Call for Suggestions

N1CC at aol.com N1CC at aol.com
Fri Jan 19 00:39:21 EST 1996


There have been quite a few comments in regard to your note!  Many are from
who are very good CW Ops... and the comments have been positive.  However,
 there is one point that most miss ... a point that I used as an
undergraduate at UTD.

The ability to copy code quickly depends on YOU reaching two plateaus:

1.  You no longer "count" dits and only hear a discrete sound that you
know as a character.  This usually begins to take place at 13-16 wpm.  It's
speed that most people can no longer concentrate on "counting".  This is in
a cognitive process that relates to Short Term Memory ... much like a
buffer, your mind accepts information into a "disk cache" that has a "link"
to Long
Term Memory (Where you have filed the equation "di di di dah = V").  When you
are still "counting" you actually load most of the alphabet from LTM into STM
"break the code".  Because this becomes a serial process it takes a long
just like it would in a computer.


2.  Your need to make a "record" copy by writing or typing becomes either not
a noticible process or more precisly automatic.  

There is one way to get the bottom-line process to work, and that is to
what is called "Transferance".  Transferance takes place when an cognitive
task becomes a reflex action.  YOU can get transferance to take place today.
Here is how to make it happen:

Bill, you say you have mastered 20 WPM.  If you can give this method an
half hour every other day for a month you can dramatically increase both your
"hot receive without writing it down" and your "ability to record to

Some of the folks have pointed out...learn to record it on your
that, it will help you Log in a contest..... however, for the next month I
you to follow the following Regimen:  (You will need a good source of fairly
accurate constant speed plain text morse code)

Week 1 Day 1:  At 20 WPM LISTEN ONLY for 5 minutes, don't try to write it
                         down or record it.  Then COPY at 15 WPM for 5
                         PRINT EACH LETTER, THEN CIRCLE THE LETTER.  Then
                         LISTEN at 25 WPM for 5 minutes.   Repeat this one
time = 30 Min.
Week 1 Day 3:  Do Week 1 Day 1 again
Week 1 Day 5:  Do Week 1 Day 1 again
Week 1 Day 7:   At 25 WPM LISTEN ONLY for 5 minutes, don't try to write it
                         down or record it.  Then COPY at 20  WPM for 5
                         PRINT EACH LETTER, THEN CIRCLE THE LETTER.  Then
                         LISTEN at 30 WPM for 5 minutes.   Repeat this one
time = 30 Min.
Week2  Day 2:  Do Week 1 Day 7 again.
Week2  Day 4:  Do Week 1 Day 7 again
Week2  Day 6:  Do Week 1 Day 7 again
Week3  Day 1:   At 30  WPM LISTEN ONLY for 5 minutes, don't try to write it
                         down or record it.  Then COPY at 25  WPM for 5
                         PRINT EACH LETTER, THEN CIRCLE THE LETTER.  Then
                         LISTEN at 35  WPM for 5 minutes.   Repeat this one
time = 30 Min.
Week3  Day 3:  Do Week3  Day 1 again.
Week3  Day 5:  Do Week3  Day 1 again
Week3  Day 7:  Do Week3  Day 1 again
Week4 Day 2:  NOW lets type into your computer/typewriter at 30 WPM for 10
                        minutes.  IF you type 80% or better  start the
formula again at 
                       five WPM bumps for another three weeks.  ADDing to
                       session an extra 10 minutes typing at the speed 5 WPM
                       than your "circling" speed.

Now you will ask why .... tranferance happens best when the STM is busy.  If
you are circling letters you are adding an unrelated motor action to your
This keeps you from thinking about other things besides what you are doing,
and allows the STM stack to set up a better link to LTM.

I have used this over the years in teaching code... it always works if you
the routine and REALLY want to improve your speed.  I have had it work with a

74 year old (an SK now) who went from Novice to Extra in less than a year 
with no prior code knowledge, and with a 7-year old.  

Please give it a try!  73, Jim N1CC (http://users.aol.com/n1cc/index.htm)
At 05:48 PM 1/15/96 -0400, Bill Coleman AA4LR wrote:
>I have a confession to make.
>I know that many of you are avid CW contestors. Most serious contest types
>are CW operators, for some reason. And they are fast operators, too. Speeds
>of 30, 35, 40 even 50 wpm is nothing.
>I have a confession to make.
>Oh, sure, I can copy 20 wpm. Even 16 years after getting my extra. 20 wpm
>is not so bad. But in contests, 20 wpm is SLOW. Heck, some contest programs
>can't even go as slow as 20 wpm!
>I have a confession to make -- I still copy CW on paper.
>I don't know why, but I do. I've never developed the skill to copy in my
>head. In fact, I don't even copy behind. Instead, I kind of hear the
>letters and write them down. Sometimes I'm not even aware of what I've
>copied until I read the paper.
>I can copy some things, like CQ, DE, TU, QSL, QRL, NAME, ?, AGN, etc in my
>head. Sometimes my hand writes them down anyway.
>CW contests have seemed like work. They should be just as much fun as phone
>contests. I think they would be if I wasn't scribbling on paper all the
>I know the answer. The answer is practice. The question is -- what kind of
>practice is best.
>So, now that you know, all you CW mavens out there, I want you to think
>back, wayyyy back. Back to the time when you barely new CW. (Those of you
>who learned it in the womb are excepted)
>How did you make the transistion to copying CW in your head? Was it a
>gradual process, or did it happen practically overnight. Did you just work
>so much CW as a young ham that you don't remember how it happened? Was
>there any particular kind of practice you remember?
>Your stories and suggestions might help one budding contestor kick the
>pencil habit.
>Bill Coleman, AA4LR      Mail: aa4lr at radio.org
>Quote: "Man will never fly in a thousand years!"
>            -- Wilbur Wright, 1902

>From prosper at iadfw.net (Brent Childers)  Fri Jan 19 05:47:53 1996
From: prosper at iadfw.net (Brent Childers) (Brent Childers)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 23:47:53 -0600 (CST)
Subject: International Radio Filters
Message-ID: <199601190547.XAA29034 at server.iadfw.net>


I finally got a decent radio (TS-850) and now I'm in the market for some CW
filters.  I know that International Radio has been in question as of late,
and I would like to know if anyone has had success with them lately.  Also,
if they are not around anymore, is Kenwood the only game in town for 400-500
Hz CW filters?

                73 de KI5JC

>From bobg4ujs at netcentral.co.uk (Bob Harrison)  Fri Jan 19 08:19:41 1996
From: bobg4ujs at netcentral.co.uk (Bob Harrison) (Bob Harrison)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 08:19:41 GMT
Subject: EMTRON DX-2 HF Amp
Message-ID: <199601190819.IAA04951 at net1.netcentral.co.uk>

Hi, does anyone have any info on the EMTRON DX2 HF Amp, evidently its a new
amp designed and built in Australia and uses a pair of 4CX800A (GU74b) as
does the ETO 91b.....

73 de Bob G4UJS

>From Takao KUMAGAI <je1cka at dumpty.nal.go.jp>  Fri Jan 19 12:45:03 1996
From: Takao KUMAGAI <je1cka at dumpty.nal.go.jp> (Takao KUMAGAI)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 21:45:03 +0900
Subject: EMTRON DX-2 HF Amp
Message-ID: <199601191245.VAA18069 at dumpty.nal.go.jp>

In message "[cq-contest 11947] EMTRON DX-2 HF Amp"
    on 96/01/19, Bob Harrison writes:

: Hi, does anyone have any info on the EMTRON DX2 HF Amp, evidently its a new
: amp designed and built in Australia and uses a pair of 4CX800A (GU74b) as
: does the ETO 91b.....

This amp has been developed by Rudi(Ludi?) VK2AOT. He is the 
owner engineer of the EMTRONICS(short for EMONA Electronics). 
The amp was demonstrated at the last HamFair in Tokyo.

The specification is as follows;
Band		: 160-10m(WARC bands included)
Output		: 1.5kw max
Drive Power	: 40-60w
Input SWR	: 1.3 or less
AC voltage	: 240V
Price		: $3,800Aus
Exact weight and size were not given.

There is DX-1 which has same cabinet as DX-2 but one GU74B,
and the price is $2,800Aus.

94 Wentworth Ave, Sydney 2000
Phone: (02)211-0988
FAX  : (02)281-1508 (yes two-eight-one)

	Tack Kumagai JE1CKA/KH0AM
	TEL:81-30-066-6408, FAX:81-423-93-4449
	Internet: je1cka at nal.go.jp

>From Charles H. Harpole" <harpole at pegasus.cc.ucf.edu  Fri Jan 19 13:35:02 1996
From: Charles H. Harpole" <harpole at pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Charles H. Harpole)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 08:35:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Pointing yagis into the wind
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960119082902.5041A-100000 at Pegasus>

I think someone wrote in QST (?) about aiming the ends of the elements 
into the wind, but I prefer to point the beam directly into the wind with 
the front end of the boom looking directly into the wind,  I think that 
you have to caculate where the greatest wind resistance is, but also take 
into account flex-- that is, the elements will bend back into the wind 
and take some of the strain that way, whereas the boom will not bend 
nearly so much, taking little strain relief (the bough that bends usually 
does not break).  I got the chance to watch my old four element Swan 
(that used to be Hornet, remember them?) tribander looking directly into 
70 mph (I was standing in the lee of my auto, but outside, and reporting 
into an ht about cloud rotation just above my head in Illinois), and saw 
what I think was the best beam heading:  directly into the wind.

Good luck.

73, K4VUD

Charlie Harpole, Ph. D.               Bands:  160m thru 440; SSB, CW, Pkt.
3100 North Hwy. 426                   Mobile: 80-10m (100 w) & 146 & 440
Geneva, FL  32732-9761                DXer and Contester:  237 confrmd.
E-mail adr:  harpole at pegasus.cc.ucf.edu
Voice:  (407) 349-2211   Work:  (407) 823-3606   24-hr. FAX: (407) 823-5255
or FAX at home at (407) 349-2211 but voice first.

K4VUD is faculty advisor for the University of Central Florida Amateur 
Radio Club and trustee for its call sign, WB4TCW, and repeater, 146.640 
in Orlando, Fla.  Club has 4 hf rigs, and all modes on 2m & 440.

K4VUD is a member of the 4U1UN Radio Readiness Net, SATURN Ring Salvation 
Army emerg. group, Life Member ARRL, and nice guy (except in contests!).

On Wed, 17 Jan 1996, Steve Nace wrote:

> As I type this we are experiencing 80+ mph winds in southern New Mexico and
> far West Texas. I recently read that one should point his/her yagis 45
> degrees off of the wind. I thought the prefered method is to point directly
> into the wind.
> I am interested in the knowledge within this group. Please respond
> directly. Summary if interest exists.
> 73 de Hose   KN5H

>From Charles H. Harpole" <harpole at pegasus.cc.ucf.edu  Fri Jan 19 13:42:52 1996
From: Charles H. Harpole" <harpole at pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Charles H. Harpole)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 08:42:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Force 12 C-3 vs. Hy-Gain TH7 and SNOW
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960119084131.5041B-100000 at Pegasus>

Hey Ralph,
Will you sell me your TH-7 when you change antennas?

Nuf said?

73, K4VUD

Charlie Harpole, Ph. D.               Bands:  160m thru 440; SSB, CW, Pkt.
3100 North Hwy. 426                   Mobile: 80-10m (100 w) & 146 & 440
Geneva, FL  32732-9761                DXer and Contester:  237 confrmd.
E-mail adr:  harpole at pegasus.cc.ucf.edu
Voice:  (407) 349-2211   Work:  (407) 823-3606   24-hr. FAX: (407) 823-5255
or FAX at home at (407) 349-2211 but voice first.

K4VUD is faculty advisor for the University of Central Florida Amateur 
Radio Club and trustee for its call sign, WB4TCW, and repeater, 146.640 
in Orlando, Fla.  Club has 4 hf rigs, and all modes on 2m & 440.

K4VUD is a member of the 4U1UN Radio Readiness Net, SATURN Ring Salvation 
Army emerg. group, Life Member ARRL, and nice guy (except in contests!).

>From Steve Sacco <0006901972 at mcimail.com>  Fri Jan 19 14:24:00 1996
From: Steve Sacco <0006901972 at mcimail.com> (Steve Sacco)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 96 09:24 EST
Subject: Force 12 C-3 vs. TH7DXX
Message-ID: <24960119142442/0006901972DC3EM at MCIMAIL.COM>

I learned all I ever care or need to know about the TH6/TH7 series after reading the NCJ article last year in which the designer of the TH6 was interviewed.  (I don't recall which issue,or the engineer's name - I'm on the road right now, and don't have

In the article, the designer gave design priorities for the TH7.  The Number 1 priority was F/B.  I suppose this make sense - it's easier for a ham to distinguish F/B than forward gain.  

For myself, it's all I need to know.  Forward gain makes you loud.  F/B does not.  

Nuff said.

Steve KC2X
ssacco at mcimail.com

>From Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH at TGV.COM>  Fri Jan 19 14:35:00 1996
From: Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH at TGV.COM> (Trey Garlough)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 06:35:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: announcing 3830 at AKORN.NET mailing list
Message-ID: <822062100.215485.GARLOUGH at TGV.COM>

I am pleased to announce a new mailing list dedicated to the reporting
of contest scores: 3830 at akorn.net.  Many thanks to Bill Fisher, KM9P,
for setting this up.  The purpose of this list is to provide a forum
for people who wish to report their scores after contests, much like
the post-contest "Liar's Net" on 3830 kHz.  Scores posted to the 3830
list will be summarized daily to the CQ-Contest list during the week
following a contest weekend.

I hope that the creation of this group will help offload some of the
traffic from CQ-Contest and help keep its focus on discussion rather
than score reporting.  This change will be transparent to those wish
to continue to see all traffic by subscribing to the new list as
well (send a message to 3830-request at akorn.net that says SUBSCRIBE).

Thanks to everyone for your feedback.  I have attached a summary of
your responses to the end of this message.

--Trey, WN4KKN/6


In order to cut down the traffic on the CQ-Contest at TGV.COM mailing
list, I would like to propose the creation of a 3830 at someplace.foo
mailing list that would act as a place to post contest scores.  In
other words, after the contest you could report your score on 3830 as
well as the 3830 mailing list.

The purpose of this action would be to help preserve CQ-Contest as a
discussion list without filling up the mailboxes of those people who
are not interested in receiving a seperate message desribing every
effort in every contest.  Someone who is interested in score reports
for a specific contest could sign on to the 3830 list in time to
receive the reports.  Then someone could post periodic summaries to
CQ-Contest of the scores posted to the 3830 list (thanks floydjr! --
keep up the great work!).

I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

--Trey, WN4KKN


Ditto - this is long overdue.  Thanks for the suggestion.




Sounds like a great idea to me! Let's remember though that Floyd has
been collecting scores for a few contests already and word has gotten
out to all but many still feel the need to post their scores directly
to the net anyway. If you create such a reflector and guys still
insist on posting scores here on this reflector then what will be
done? I would much rather look at Floyd's list than hit my delete
button for each and every score.(especially those pesky "I only
operated for 6 and a half hours due to family commitments" type
scores.) 73 and thanks for the work keeping this thing going.


I think its a good idea.


I like the idea! I'm usually only interested in details of a couple of
contests per year.


Sounds good to me.  I do read the scores of people I know, but not the
vast majority.  Your suggestion would let us all have it both ways.


I like the idea Trey!!  I enjoy the reflector, but I really do not
care about all of the scores.  I usually only check out the summary if
I or a m/m effort score concerns me.  I would like to thank you for
hosting the reflector!!


Excellent idea!  I enjoy reading other contesters' comments, but
wading thru the mass of scores to get to my "normal" mail gets to be
pretty difficult and time consuming, especially after a big contest...
my vote goes to mail_scores at somewhere.org


Great idea!


I think that the separate mailing list is a fine idea.

Is there some way that one could tap into the list without subscribing
to it (mu mailbox overfloweth already!!)?  I would like to read a few
of the reports (like the big multis and the big single ops) but I am
not usually interested in the others.


Hmmm. Well there does seem to be quite a lot of traffic. But this is
to be expected. As the number of people on internet grows (heck even
Rich is on here...finally!) the volume will increase.

I actually like the "long" score reports.  I think that somehow
getting floydjr to just get the "regular" ones would help. But overall
I think that the people bitching about volume are just going to have
to get a digest version or something.

The volume will continue to grow in any case so perhaps this would be
a good move.  BTW, the digital contest guys are:
wf1b-rtty at ve7tcp.ampr.org there days if anyone inquires.

There does seem to be quite a lot of stuff that I hit the "D" key to
in elm these days tho.


YES! YES! YES! Do it 3830-scores at tgv.com Perfect solution.  Great
idea. Do it. Now please! :-)


Good idea. 


I think these type of services already exist; KA9FOX Score Rumors Page
is a good example.


Hi Trey, I like seeing the scores on the cq-contest, especially the
top 20 or so.  That's one of the reasons why I subscribe. Other
reasons are intelligent discussions and summary of major efforts. I
thinks there should a separate address for a whiner and complainer
list. Just a thought.


Well...that would be fine with me.  Just another list I would
subscribe to.

No offense to the owner of this list, but the caliber of the posts
here have declined over the time.  To me, the scores are a part of
CQ-Contest, along with the technical discussions.

I would not object to the scores taken elsewhere, but I don't mind
them here.  The delete button works well on those 100 QSO efforts.


absoltely.  I have gotten so busy over the last year that I don't get
to use the reflector as much.  Too many messages to delete.


I like reading the post-contest write-ups.  I think they are very much
a part of what this reflector is all about, and I think it would be a
mistake to move them to another reflector.

The problem is that recently we have had a number of guys who just
post their scores without any significant comments.  This is truly a
waste of bandwidth and no doubt prompted your question.  It is
particularly bad for this 10m contest with many posting trivial scores
and no commentary.

I think a better solution than a new reflector is more frequent
posting of the FAQ file, and perhaps beef it up to address this
specific problem.  A few days before each major contest, a reminder
discouraging score-only messages could also be posted.

I think with any public discussion group, be it packet, net news, or
reflectors, there will always be mountains of what I consider drivel,
but I pour through it anyway seeking out those few pearls.  Some of
those pearls for me are the contest writeups, and I think they should
stay with this reflector.


I like the idea! I get overwhelmed after some of the biggies, being on
about 7 discussion groups. After CQWW I would have 200 messages a day
waiting for me!

Of course, Jim Floyd with his summaries were always appreciated and I
always read through all of those!


Great idea. 

Now if we could just get a reflector for all the whining...


Your idea is just what the doctor ordered.  It is becoming a labor to
go through all the stuff that appears on the reflector.  Hope it comes
to fruition.


Thanks, my DEL key finger was getting wore out!  Especially since I
couldn't hear anything on 10 last weekend...oh, was there a contest?
If I was in the Top Ten, I might have a different opinion ;-)


I , for one, would be most discouraged if the type of posting was not
supported per your last message.  Learning what the other guy did, how
he did it, and anecdotal information about this contenst experience is
by far the prevailing reason I read this reflector.  I look forward to
Fred Laun's, and others, report after every contest because it is full
of interesting comments and is not only entertaining, but informative.

The argument of having too much information available is easily
handled by the delete button.  As Bob W6RGG posted some time ago, the
people who are having much of the volume problem are those who perhaps
are using the internet connection of their employer!

Sure hope this type of contest reporting remains, as regardless of the
stated purpose of your reflector -- for me , the reflector value is
defined by just those types of reports.


I certainly second ur motion!


Super idea, Trey,


A sound idea, Trey. You have my vote. 


Are people out there complaining about the posting of contest scores
on CQ-CONTEST?  I have not noted any recent threads on this.  I enjoy
reading the scores and especially the station descriptions and contest
comments.  Isn't this WHY we contest; to compare ourselves to others.
How better to do this in a timely manner than on the CQ-Contest

A lot of good info on the new HF rigs (TS870, IC775, & FT1000MP) have
been included in these contest score comments.  Other comments have
led to interesting discussions on the reflector.  Therefore, I would
vote to keep the contest score postings and comments on the CQ-Contest
reflector.  However, I do recognize that CQ-Contest is under your
control and if you decide to make changes in how scores are posted, I
promise not to complain!


Sounds good to me.


Yes, please, please, a separate place for individual scores and
soapbox comments.

And maybe a separate place for WPX category change comments as


3830.someplace.foo sounds like a great idea.


As much as I enjoy reading (some of) the stories that go along with
various contest efforts I think the 3830 mailing list is an idea whose
time has come.  I personally get bugged by the ones that just post the
*entire* summary sheet to the reflector with no additional commentary.
This is something that they could just as easily send to <floydjr> or

I'm becoming increasingly turned off by the incessant whining that
appears to be the norm these days.  But then some gem of information
is posted (like LPL's Beverage stuff and his chart for coax losses) so
I keep coming back!  I don't leave because I might miss something!!


I can understand your concerns.  However it's not the scores that take
room, but the accompanying narratives, And those are precisely what so
many, including me, find interesting.  To leave them out would be a
shame.  To continue them would not reduce traffic.  To put them in a
summary would be silly.  And I'm not sure (at least when it comes to
scores) that the multiple repetitive score summaries are actually
reducing the total bytes.

I'm not sure of your motivation on reducing traffic.  If it's the
capacity of your server, I can understand.  However if it's as a
result of user complaints, then I'm not too sympathetic.  28.8 Modems
are cheap, and if inexpensive Internet service is available in
INDIANA, surely it must be available everywhere!  Some of these folks
need to get Internet access at home.  They are the ones always
complaining their work mailboxes are getting filled.  People you use
expensive on-line services to get E-Mail need to wise up.

So I'm sorry to differ with your suggestion, but I don't see anything
wrong with CQ-Contest as it is.  I think it's the users who need to
upgrade rather than degrade or split the mailing list.

Every mailing list I've visited seems to have these arguments.
rec.boat.paddle (think that's the name) want to split into "canoe" and
"kayak".  The one on classical music wants to split into "recordings"
and some other category.  The motivation is always the same "It costs
me $.xx per byte" - "I only have a xxKb modem", "the place I work for
is complaining about the non-work mail I receive", etc., etc.

I guess I like the mailing list as it is and don't want to see it drug
down by the lowest common denominator.


I like it the way it is....if the scores were just that - a simple
line score then OK, I'm way less interested; but so many have an
interesting soapbox with them. Personally, if I haven't much of a
story to tell with my score, then it just goes directly to Jim (or
whoever) so in that case he's acting like a 3830 reflector/gatherer.

Just my thoughts, since you asked for input. 


Basically I agree that something has to be done to limit the insanity
of every guy who makes a qso posting his score to CQ-CONTEST.  In
addition, limit the posting of the scores by whomever is keeping
trtack to once a week for a month after the contest and then stop.

The question that comes to mind is what about the post contest
"soapbox" type stuff that includes the scores ?  To be honest, this is
what I enjoy most, but not from the guys who just make a 1 qso.

How do we instill the "common sense" necessary to determine whether or
not your score and comments are worth wasting the global contest
community's collective time ?


Sounds perfect, Trey.  I have been busily deleteing scores only to
read Floyd's summaries.


Personally, I enjoy reading the scores (actually, the comments moreso
than the numbers). By moving them elsewhere, we will be left with a
lot of "drivel" which now seems to generate endless comments about
what should be here and what shouldn't. I vote for keeping the scores


I always read the comments with the scores.  What gets tedious is the
(many) useless comments to which complete original messages are
appended.  If anything ought to be moved I think it should be certain
topics "after the horse is dead".




Sounds like a good idea to me. Like for cqwwssb, of no interest to me,
I could just set nomail for a while on 3830. Good luck.


I like the reflector the way it is now.  

It's the best reflector/conference of any, primarily because of your
generous editorial policy.  Even the reporting of contest scores
frequently contain very valuable information on propagation, antennas,
rigs, software, etc., as well as entertaining operating anecdotes.
Those who aren't interested in this -- well, I wonder what they are
interested in.

Please don't change it.


I definitely appreciate seeing the Summaries of contests as floydjr
has been posting them, and do not want to see them moved.

Some days, I have time to read the individual contest reports, and
other days I don't. I people do a good job of labeling them in the
subject, I just do a group select and delete, so I don't mind having
them here. At least they are more enlightening than some of the
discussions have been.  Fortunately, even the less enlightening
discussions have also been well labeled so I just do the group select
and delete.

I don't mind having a multitude of classes and threads running
simultaeously, as long as everyone keeps the subject lines straight.
That way I get to separate the wheat from the chaff, and my criteria
changes from day to day.


great idea


Sounds like a super idea. Will remove the stigma from posting feeble
scores while relieving the traffic load, which sure is high!


I think it is a good idea...But please keep an archive...I like to
read the reports, scores and setups, and if I could do this at my
leasure without getting the seperate mailings so much the better...


Good idea -- sometime real soon now (sic) I hope to resume my project
of developing a database on station equipment for contesting, and then
the score/station reports will be useful.  For the moment, though, I'd
prefer not to have them here.  At the same time, I enjoy the really
good/funny/enlightening anecdotes some people include.  any way we can
save the latter while losing the numbers, hour by hour breakdowns,


Ok, although find the blow by blow more informative than most of the
threads going around, Pretty interesting to see some of the goals guys
have etc. If someone starts a 3830 would definitely subscribe, would
be interesting to compare the readership.

not much technique station building etc lately, mostly rules haggeling
which is pretty dull ...

Not much sympathy with guys that get free Email but get in trouble
with volume at work, and with full access accounts (at least here in
the US) cheap, compared to a year or 2 ago, the pay for what you
receive guys are in a less sympathetic position.  Internationally;
however, cutting back the verbage may well be an important thing, and
do like the idea of a world wide forum.


Even if it takes lots of bandwidth, I enjoy reading the contest scores
on reflector.


Great idea!  I am all for it!


Hi Trey, Thanks for the reflector!! I hear what you're saying. I enjoy
reading the individual contest synopses, but I know it does create
quite a lot of traffic. It's fun to read each participants editorials
regarding the tests as to when the band opened to where form different
parts of the country, etc., but I'll gladly go along with whatever
makes the most sense.


To my mind, seeing the scores and the comments is one of the most
valuable features of this reflector. If it were broken off into
another reflector, I would obviously subscribe to it. I see no reason
to do that though. If the volume is high, the Subject line lets me
skip the message easily enough.

I totally agree with the thread that wants the scores right here.


I am new to CQ-Contest having just signed on but one of the reasons
for signing on was to get the contest scores and comments from the
people in the contests.  I say leave it here.


YES - PLEASE - THANK YOU! And I honestly would like to see a couple of
other splinter groups as well, but that is an EXCELLENT start!


I don't find the traffic that annoying. A quick swipe deletes most
messages about scores I don't care for. I actually find the narrations
more boring than the score blocks, but to each his own.

I think summaries would be fine with pointers back to archived score
messages. But having to sub/unsub to 3830 on a per-contest basis would
be a pain.


Good idea.  I delete almost all of the contest summaries B4 reading
them.  Tell me where this new list will be so I don't accidentally
subscribe to it!!

PS: One more thing; maybe I should have posted this reply to the
ENTIRE LIST like some people seem compelled to do.


i had suggested that a year or so ago... still sounds like a great


I don't read many of the scores (lack of time, not lack of interest).
However, the fact that they are posted, and take a while to download
(perhaps 5 min max) doesn't bother me.

I don't post my own scores, but rather, send them to the
"roller-upper-summary" person (floydjr etc.).


Not a bad idea.  People should just be able to subscribe to the new


I vote to keep the scores on the contest reflector, but the 3830 list
may be a good way to keep everyone happy.


3830 reflector is a great idea, with summaries to CQ Contest.


I don't know, Trey.  If reports on the strategy and tactics used in a
particular contest effort aren't germane to this list, then what is?
Discussions about what antennas or new rigs are better than others?
What kind of wire to use for an antenna?

Why take off this list what is more contest-oriented than most of the 
stuff we see on here from day to day?  Guess I would stop subscribing to 
this list and just subscribe to 3830.foo


Bad idea, Trey.  The scores are the very essence of contesting.  I
like to read their QSN and condition reports.  Yes, there is a huge
surge in traffic after each contest, but all in all, it's the meat and
potatoes of the competitive portion of the hobby.


I agree 100 percent. I would much prefer to see it done the way you
suggest. The scores seem to make up a large portion of the messages on
the reflector at contest time. I don't really understand why some
people object to moving the scores to another reflector. All they have
to do is subscribe to the "3830" reflector. That way they get the
scores and the rest of us don't have to fool with them.


Trey, another idea would be to have someone get email, compile the
lists and post the summaries....sort of like Floyd something or other
is doing.  Makes it nice to have one mail posting per week.


The 'gems' in the contest postings aren't the scores, but the
comments.  Please don't force me to subscribe to yet another reflector
that people will cross-post to, giving me multiple copies of the same

What we have now is great.  Maybe folks could be convinced to put the
words 'score' or 'results' in the subject so those who don't want to
read them can skip the message.  What you propose would impose on
those of us who wish to decide for ourselves what to read to satisfy
those who do not wish to decide for themselves.

I believe the argument of 'what it costs to get mail' on internet is
now passe and should be ignored.  If someone really has one of those
accounts, that is his problem, not ours!

It ain't broke, don't fix it!


I usually, but not alway delete scores without reading them. This is
no problem to me as I don't pay for my messages. I can just do a bulk
download and read what I am interested in and delete what I am not
interested in.  However, I am sure there are some people in the group
that still pay per message. Maybe some of them would care to comment?


Wonderful idea.  I get tired of skimming/deleting the hundreds of
messages reporting results that I may not really be interested in


I think the idea of a 3830 list is an excellent idea.  I spend alot of
time deleting messages without reading them just after a contest, but
I do like the summaries that Jim Floyd posts.


Trey, I fully agree.  The traffic re:individual scores, with the
exception of one or two, gets trashed here.  The summaries of all the
scores could remain on here though.  That ought to have everyone's


I agree.


I'm perfectly agree.


I have mixed feelings on the subject.  Some of the stuff is really
interesting to read, and perhaps even educational.  Some of it is
dull, boring, terse, or worse; but still might contain a grain or two
of worthwhile information.

I think it boils down to the reader taking responsibility for what he
will spend his time and/or money on.  You're the boss, so what you say
goes.  I have learned to appreciate most of what appears on the
reflector to some degree, and I ignore the rest.


I didn't do the math: but my guess is that >60% of the messages are
individual scores and summaries: the stuff I read the most. It
wouldn't bother me if they were posted/kept on another system, but I
think the remaining 40% is pretty junky based on what I've been
reading lately!


I too, enjoy reading everyone's comments etc in their score postings,
but I think some of us missed the point. Trey is running this
reflector at the good will of his EMPLOYER, tying up THEIR resources.
Considering this, I don't see why anyone should object to creation of
another reflector to reduce the amount of traffic (and imposition on
TGV) here. It just means you subscribe to another list. You'll still
get the same data. And, an advantage for those who pay by the byte is
they will still get to see the summaries here without all the
individual reports and comments.


Good idea.  After each contest I typically delete all the individual
results msgs, and only read the "summary" msgs.  Go for it.




A great idea. 

One could subscribe to a "scores" reflector before a particular
contest, and unsubscribe a few weeks later. Saves a lot of time, fuss
and wear on the Del key.

Sweepstakes and FD scores are about as relevant and interesting to me
(and most other EUs) as the "North of Scotland 70cms Summer FM
Rotating Post-Code Cumulative Contest" scores would be to you guys!

Many thanks for CQ-CONTEST. I learn more here than from QST...


I for one vote for keeping the score postings on cq-contest. There's
enough fragmenting as it is. No, I don't pay per message. :-)


Would like it moved.  Hard to delete easily with my service/software.


Great Idea, I feel there is a great need for contest scores but I feel
there should be a seperate place for them for those who want to see
them. When I work a contest I really like to see them, but If I dont
work the contest then I have no interest in them, personally.


In case you're still keeping score, I strongly support this idea.  In
fact, I've been saying this almost since I signed on to cq-contest.  I
can't imagine a logical argument for NOT doing it.  As many have
already stated, everyone will then have the choice of taking it or
leaving it.


I think this is a good idea. Sometimes people forget that the
reflector goes to many dxcc countries and reading all the scores of
some of the domestic contests in the US is not always so interesting!!
In fact some days the level of traffic is so high I just spend 10
minutes deleteing and hoping I don't get rid of work e-mails. I must
set up a filter to file the cq-contest mails separately. The reflector
is just getting too popular.


Hmmmm...I see the problem, but is this the solution?

I think it is fair to say that most people like the contest reports.
The problem is the volume of small scores and people who just post
summary sheets.

Even if a separate mailing list is created, I will have to subscribe
to it so I can get the good ones (like K3ZO, etc.).  And I will still
have to read the stupid ones.  So why take them off CQ-Contest?


Just figured I'd send a quick note to 'officially register my vote' on
the subject...I'd prefer to see the contest results on a separate ref

1) I get way too much mail at work and am starting to feel a bit
   guilty about it!

2) I can stay subscribed to the contest ref for general info stuff,
   and just sub to the results ref. for contests I am interested in,
   then turn off again.

So sounds like a good plan to me!


ANYTHING to cut down on the mail would be good.  I usually sit here
quietly, except for posting my own scores, and find I'm constantly
spending more than a little time simply deleting thread after thread,
usually from the same people. 


Sounds like a great idea!  I am one of those people who doesn't get
the time to pull down reflector mail each evening so there is always a
log jam of this kinda stuff that I just skim over (mostly don't read).
That is why it's taking so long for me to reply (hi!).


I think it's a good idea to have a separate scores group, easy to
subscribe to both at once if you like scores, or not if not.  Dunno
why anyone should disagree!


I agree, the many scores listings can be boring.  But, the station
descriptions and soapbox contained therein often tempt me to read,
even though I skip the Qs and mults part (unless it's one of my
benchmarks).  And I guess people benchmark against people different
from the ones I do.


>From David & Barbara Leeson <0005543629 at mcimail.com>  Fri Jan 19 14:53:00 1996
From: David & Barbara Leeson <0005543629 at mcimail.com> (David & Barbara Leeson)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 96 09:53 EST
Subject: Pointing yagis into the wind
Message-ID: <80960119145308/0005543629NA3EM at MCIMAIL.COM>

The choice of how to aim a Yagi in a windstorm depends on which of these is 
the weakest point of the antenna system:

Mast and tower
Rotator and coax

If the elements are the weak spot, you don't want to have them broadside to 
the wind.  If the boom is the weak spot, you don't want it broadside to the 
wind.  As Stan, W7NI, points out, it's better to lose an element than to lose 
the boom plus the elements, so boom with the wind is a conservative choice.

The only time the antenna area comes into play is if the mast and/or tower 
are the weakest link.  The antenna area depends on the areas both of the 
elements and of the boom, and is calculated under older standards to be 
maximum, but under newer standards minimum, with the boom around 45 degrees 
to the wind.  Of course the mast area is the same for all wind directions.

Yagis tend to weathervane along the boom, even if they are symmetrical, and 
the response to gusting in different directions tends to break the mast loose 
(goodbye coax) or destroy rotators.  There ae still a lot of unknowns in this 

Using the model that was current at the time I wrote Physical Design of Yagi 
Antennas, Electronic Industry Association's EIA RS-222-C, you calculate the 
area to be the square root of the sum of the squares of boom and element 
areas (i.e., bigger than either one by itself), and the angle to the wind for 
maximum side force is somewhere around 45 degrees.  NI6W's excellent YS 
software is also based on RS-222-C.

Since that time, models that give a better picture of forces on cylinders at 
an angle to wind have been published by EIA (EIA-222-E) and by the American 
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 74).  In these standards, the wind force on 
a cylinder in yaw is modelled on the idea that the force is all due to 
variations in surface pressure around the cylinder, with no viscous force 
along the axis.  Since pressure acts perpendicular to the surface, the force 
on a cylinder in yaw is also perpendicular to the axis.  If the wind were 
purely horizontal (which it isn't) you could say that all the element force 
is directed along the boom.

Using the newer model gives the same limits for element strength.  Because 
the element force is perpendicular to element axes, it predicts you could 
make booms slightly less beefy, but not by much because you can't ignore the 
effect of the vertical gust component on boom requirements.  A typical 
failure of big Yagis is the boom breaking upward; I use wind models with 
gusting at 15 degrees from horizontal over flat terrain and 30 degrees in 
hilly terrain.

The biggest difference between the old and new models, and one that has 
caused confusion, is the prediction of the side force on the mast and tower.  
Modelled under the newer standards the maximum area is simply the larger of 
the boom or element areas, and the effective area is less than either one at 
angles near 45 degrees. So the predicted side force under the newer models 
(remember, the real world hasn't changed, only the model) is less, the 
minimum rather than the maximum is around 45 degrees and maybe you can get by 
with a little less mast or tower if you want to take the gamble.

I experimented with scale-model Yagis in a poor-man's wind tunnel (mounted 
on a bearing out the sunroof of a car) and satisfied myself that the more 
recent standards describe the physical situation better, but I also found 
that there were stable points both with the boom aligned with the wind and 
with elements aligned with wind (0,90,180,270 degrees).

This weathervaning may be caused by shadowing of the boom by the elements 
and vice versa.  It isn't predicted by the simple force models, but you can 
sure see it on your own antennas in a wind.  Symmetry, especially boom 
balance, reduces the rotating torque needed to rotate the antennas in the 
wind.  But even with static balance, weathervaning with different gust and 
vortex directions results in your mast coming loose or rotator breakage no 
matter how carefully you align it with the mean wind.  The required rotator 
braking torque depends on the rotational resonant frequency (it goes way up 
if there's any bang-bang mechanical backlash) and on the mass and area polar 
moments of the antennas on the mast, which scale with element size and the 
square of the boom length.

The bottom line for me is that I don't let myself overload the mast or tower 
at the local 50-year maximum windspeed (defined as a medium-term average 
called the "fastest mile of wind" that doesn't include the shortest gusts), I 
balance the booms and the elements and I aim the antennas with the boom along 
the predominant storm wind direction.  I still lose rotators from gust 
weathervaning (the prop pitches aren't ready yet) and I use a short coax 
jumper at the mast so I only have a small piece to replace if things get 
loose.  This year's storms measured 134 mi/h plus gusts on the ridge here, so 
theory really got well tested.

73 de Dave, W6QHS

>From Bob Selbrede <w9nq at ccis.com>  Fri Jan 19 15:17:31 1996
From: Bob Selbrede <w9nq at ccis.com> (Bob Selbrede)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 07:17:31 -0800
Subject: Submitting NAQP Logs Via Internet
Message-ID: <199601191517.AA12892 at bart.ccis.com>

        I'm sending this again since I never saw it actually get posted to
the mailing list on the reflector; at least I never got a copy of it.  Hope
this info is helpful.


Hi folks,

        I've had several requests from people wanting to know if submitting
their NAQP logs via Internet was acceptable.  Yes, Internet submissions are
just fine, as long as a few basic guidlines are followed.  Please note that
CW Team Registrations and Log Submissions go to me, W9NQ and the SSB
equivalent goes to Steve, N4TQO.  Our E-Mail addresses are as follows:

Bob Selbrede, W9NQ.  Address = w9nq at ccis.com

Steve Merchant, N4TQO.  Address = merchant at crl.com

        I'm sure I speak for Steve as well when I say Internet submissions
are fine, and encouraged.  At least this way you will get a return receipt
without the additional cost of Certified Mail, etc.

        When submitting via Internet, send your log and summary info in
ASCII text format.  Preferrably within the body of E-Mail message(s).  Make
sure you do not send your actual binary (raw) log file.  To use these we
would need to have copies of multiple versions of multiple logging programs
and do a lot of work ourselfs creating the necessary ASCII text files.  That
would clearly be unacceptable.

        As with paper logs via Snail Mail, please ensure that your logs are
complete and meet the criteria for a proper log (multipliers need to be
clearly marked, etc).  Most of the standard logging programs do this quite
nicely.  Also please make sure your Logs, and preferrably your Summary
Sheets as well, have your OFF TIMES marked clearly.  Steve and I spend tons
of time searching for things that should be clearly marked, and many times
are not!

        I hope that was helpful.  I have already received about 8 CW Logs,
and last August I received a total of 41 CW logs via E-Mail.  When I get
your submission I'll send you a note stating if it was received OK or not.
Thanks for participating in the NAQP and for your Q's last weekend.  Hope to
CU on SSB this weekend.

73, Bob W9NQ

>From Swanson, Glenn,  KB1GW" <gswanson at arrl.org  Fri Jan 19 15:41:00 1996
From: Swanson, Glenn,  KB1GW" <gswanson at arrl.org (Swanson, Glenn,  KB1GW)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 96 10:41:00 EST
Subject: FW: Kn'wd DRU => SUMMARY
Message-ID: <30FFBCB6 at arrl.org>


If interested, add this to your copy of the Kn'wd DRU SUMMARY:

73, Glenn, KB1GW

To: Swanson, Glenn,  KB1GW
Subject: Re: Kn'wd DRU => SUMMARY
Date: Friday, January 19, 1996 7:05AM
One last addendum:  One fellow mentioned that you have to have the VOX
active to use the DRU.  Well, yes and no.  You do have to have the VOX
button pushed, but you can  turn the VOX gain control all the way down so
the microphone won't trigger it.

73, Bill
 - - - - - -

>From sellington" <sellington at mail.ssec.wisc.edu  Fri Jan 19 14:45:34 1996
From: sellington" <sellington at mail.ssec.wisc.edu (sellington)
Date: 19 Jan 1996 09:45:34 -0500
Subject: AA9OC NAQP CW Score
Message-ID: <n1390077740.77912 at mail.ssec.wisc.edu>

AA9OC Score:

238 QSO's, 83 Mults, 19,754 Points

(Tony is 13)


Scott  K9MA
sellington at ssec.wisc.edu

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list