NAQP-SSB de KF9PL
Sean E. Kutzko
tigger at prairienet.org
Sun Jan 21 20:09:42 EST 1996
The Delbert McClinton warm-up gig went faster than planned, so I actually
managed a bit of operating time.
Not much to report, really... just got on 160 for a little bit and handed
out a handful of QSO's. I wanted to make sure that I posted the log so
none of the QSO's were considered unique and deleted later (<- A joke).
160m 0359 KW8N Bob OH
0400 KG8CW Mike MI
0401 KG8PE Mike MI
0408 AB4RU Ron GA
0409 K0EJ Mark TN
0411 WA6KUI Rick TN
0413 K8MJZ Stan MI
0440 N4ZZ Don TN
0443 NI8L Scott OH
0444 NC0P Tony IA
0445 WZ4F Larry AL
One interesting observation: I decided that I'd use my middle name (Eric)
on SSB, as Sean is a pain to understand and usually requires a phonetic fill.
Turns out, I should have just used Sean; most of the folks heard my call
and replied, "Hey Sean...Bonzo in North Dakota" or whatever. The ensuing
mess of me giving them a different name was more time-consuming than I
had intended. Guess more folks know me than I thought.
Eric (errr, no, waitasec...)
Sean Kutzko Amateur Radio: KF9PL
Urbana, IL DXCC: 305 wkd/301 cfmd
"The obligation of anyone who thinks of himself as responsible is to examine
society and try to change it--at no matter what risk."--James Baldwin
>From broz at csn.net (John Brosnahan) Mon Jan 22 03:28:05 1996
From: broz at csn.net (John Brosnahan) (John Brosnahan)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 20:28:05 -0700
Subject: Log Checking for Uniques
Message-ID: <199601220328.UAA26212 at lynx.csn.net>
The following thoughts are not to be considered an attack on any individual
or any contest or any sponsor. The topic of unique call signs in contest
logs and log checking has been something I have been concerned with for many
years and the recent round of communications on the subject has prompted me
to add a few thoughts.
Bad, busted, or broken call signs should of course be removed from a log and
any penalties should be invoked if they have been spelled out in the rules.
But I consider the removal of unique call signs, just because they are
unique, to be unfair and outside the spirit of the contest!
NOWHERE IN THE RULES OF ANY OF THE CONTESTS THAT I HAVE REVIEWED DOES IT SAY
THAT YOU CAN COUNT ONLY THOSE QSOs MADE WITH STATIONS THAT OTHER COMPETITORS
HAVE ALSO WORKED!
But I also consider the close inspection of uniques to be appropriate. It
is a flag that something (poor operating or even cheating) MIGHT be going
on, but it in no way proves it. A large number of uniques is only an
indicator to look a little closer at a log.
There are a number of scenarios that can lead to uniques that are perfectly
valid QSOs under the contest rules.
1) I don't operate sweepstakes but I often get on and work a few CW QSOs.
I usually just tune across the band once or twice and call a few of my
friends to give them the points. But on occasion I may only run across one
of my old friends during my limited effort and give out only one QSO for
that weekend. It's a real QSO, it is unsolicited, and I don't want to be
told that I don't count!
2) I have built some large antennas for the sole purpose to be able to work
paths that no one else can work! My 8/8/8/8 on 10M has resulted in 15dB S/N
ratio on EME echoes (!) and has been very impressive into central Asia on
10M long path. If some VU who is not in the contest but happens to hear me
and works me because he is so surprised to hear a W0 in general--oblique
reference to the black hole-- or at least at that time of day and on that
path, then I should not be penalized for my efforts to build large antennas.
In fact I have built them with the hope of getting some unique QSOs and mults.
3) My station is usually operated by guest ops and I want the very best op
I can find to do the best job he can with the big signal I hope I have
established with my big antennas. On many occasions I have heard stations
not in the contest work my station and say, "I am not in the contest, but
you sounded like such a good operator (or so lonely, or whatever) that I
wanted to give you a QSO. One measure of a good op is someone who can
interest the non contester into joining in on the fun, even if it is for
only one QSO--in fact I hope it is only one QSO, one we get and no one else
4) Another scenario for uniques. Say, for example, that my Spanish is so
good (which it isn't) that I can break into a Spanish speaking round table
discussion and ask for QSOs from the participants. Maybe they never operate
the contest or even hate all contests, but are impressed with my command of
Spanish that they all give me a QSO anyway. Seems to me like those are
valid QSOs, even if unique. I know a number of west coast stations have
gone to great lengths to learn Japanese. Not only does it help them run JAs
that are in the contest, it may attract a few JAs that normally wouldn't
bother working the contest.
And there are many other scenarios for unique call signs to appear in a log
that are perfectly valid QSOs. I want someone operating my station to make
the effort to get the call right, who won't "roger" the exchange until he is
sure. Basically, an operator who is not LAZY. Although I do admit that
there can be typos and busted calls from even the best ops in any effort,
especially a 48 hour one.
Unique checking provides an indicator for the capabilities of the operator
and an indicator of whether a log should be inspected more closely. I put
my trust that log checkers are just as good as the best ops. The last thing
I want is a log checker who is LAZY. One who throws out QSOs just on the
basis that they are unique.
Although I am anti-litigious by nature I can understand why someone who had
spent the time and money to build a competitive contest station might resort
to litigation if the removal of valid, but unique, QSOs resulted in the
loss of a victory or if his character was brought into question by a
disqualification based on removal of valid, but unique, QSOs.
My joy in this hobby comes from building antennas that can discover new
propagation paths. To make QSOs that seem impossible to everyone else. To
work something no one else does, to make the ultimate, unique QSO--please
don't tell me I am wasting my time!
I have the highest regard for the efforts of the log checkers, and I hope
they all continue doing a good job, for what seems to me like a monumental
task that doesn't get the thanks that it deserves. I think they provide an
important service helping to improve the quality of the competitor's efforts
and in some cases keeping a few from possibly stretching the truth. But
please don't remove a QSO just because it is unique or because you just
can't believe that there was propagation in that direction at that time.
73 John W0UN
La Salle Research Corp 24115 WCR 40 La Salle, CO 80645 USA
voice 970-284-6602 fax 970-284-0979 email broz at csn.net
>From Steven Sample <aa9ax at iglou.com> Mon Jan 22 04:08:33 1996
From: Steven Sample <aa9ax at iglou.com> (Steven Sample)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 23:08:33 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Bafoofnik/Fish heads/Wedges/Etc
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960121225948.18782A-100000 at iglou>
Just to set the record straight...
I have been receiving some E-mail responses to the Fish Heads posting
from Dr. Bafooknik. Somehow, people have determined that the post was
mine. While the mail has been all positive, I can't take credit for the
genius of someone else.
I simply sent a reply to the good Doctor, who happens to be high on my
list of contest buddies.
The Doctor has sent my name through an evolutionary cycle:
Steve Sample > > Whitman Sampler > > Slim Whitman
Thank you for the nice words, but I am only one of the thousands of
contest friends of the Doctor and his accomplice. I do take credit,
however, for being co-inventor of the "Flying Wedge"...a Destructive
Contest Machine capable of literally winning any North American Contest
by sweeping the country from coast-to-coast in a wedge-like fashion
harvesting QSO's in record numbers. We are still trying to determine if
it's use falls within the rules of the governing bodies.
All I can tell you is that the Good Doctor says put your money on the
Pissburg Stealers next Sunday - take the points!
Time will tell. Thanks again, and 73.
>From Maxime Caron <mcaron at riq.qc.ca> Mon Jan 22 04:11:03 1996
From: Maxime Caron <mcaron at riq.qc.ca> (Maxime Caron)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 23:11:03 -0500
Subject: ARRL VHF SS Score
Message-ID: <9601220411.AA05193 at socrate.riq.qc.ca>
Here are my results for the January VHF SS from the ARRL as a Limited Multi-OP.
The station call sign was VA2MRX.
Conditions where bad except for 10 minutes in the contest... Up here it was
dead in FN46.
VALID PTS PER QSO GRID SQUARE
QSOs QSO POINTS MULTIPLIERS
50 MHz 5 1 5 1
144 MHz 78 1 78 4
432 MHz 27 2 54 1
Total 110 QSO's 137 points X 6 Multipliers = 822
For a Total of 822 points... Not much!!!
A lot of action in FM on 2m this time.
Hope to hear from you.
>From Stuart R. Crawford VE6SRC" <crawfors at cuug.ab.ca Mon Jan 22 04:28:58 1996
From: Stuart R. Crawford VE6SRC" <crawfors at cuug.ab.ca (Stuart R. Crawford VE6SRC)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 21:28:58 -0700 (MST)
Subject: ARRL VHF Sweepstakes score VE6RAC/R
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960121212527.28135D-100000 at sun>
ARRL January VHF Sweepstakes
Total QSO's = 78
50, 144 QSO's = 58 X 1 = 58 points
440 QSO's = 15 X 2 = 30 points
Grids worked = 10
Grids operated from = 4 (DO20, DO21, DO30, DO31)
Total Multipliers = 14
Total Points = 1232 points
VE6RAC/Rover operators VE6MT, VE6SRC
Stuart R. Crawford VE6SRC
Calgary Rep ARLA
Phone (403) 247-1063
Fax (403) 247-1063
RADIO AMATEURS OF CANADA
AMATEUR RADIO LEAGUE OF ALBERTA
CALGARY AMATEUR RADIO ASSOCIATION
ONTARIO DX ASSOCIATION
CALGARY UNIX USERS GROUP
Visit the ARLA Home Page http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~crawfors/arla
PLEASE SUPPORT THE AMATEUR RADIO LEAGUE OF ALBERTA AND YOUR LOCAL AMATEUR
>From Earl_Dery at mindlink.bc.ca (Earl Dery) Mon Jan 22 04:46:58 1996
From: Earl_Dery at mindlink.bc.ca (Earl Dery) (Earl Dery)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 20:46:58 -0800
Subject: Log checking
Message-ID: <m0teEAL-0004dMC at dewey.mindlink.net>
John W0UN has probably stated what most contesters are trying to do
better than I could have. Most of us strive to have the Antenna System
or find that little opening that maybe nobody else did to try
and get that extra mult. that nobody else has.
Well Said John.
>From w6go at netcom.com (Jay O'Brien - W6GO) Mon Jan 22 05:58:20 1996
From: w6go at netcom.com (Jay O'Brien - W6GO) (Jay O'Brien - W6GO)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 21:58:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Log Checking for Uniques
Message-ID: <199601220558.VAA25948 at netcom11.netcom.com>
Why bother to spend time building big antennas to make contacts no one
else can if that is the reason those contacts will be disallowed? Seems
like we should all put up tribanders at 50 feet to be sure we won't work
a "unique" QSO that will be deleted (and maybe a penalty QSO taken in
w6go at netcom.com
>From w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) Mon Jan 22 06:19:05 1996
From: w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 22:19:05 -0800
Subject: Pointing Yagis in the Wind
Message-ID: <199601220619.WAA27283 at desiree.teleport.com>
>2. Does maximum antenna windloading occur broadside to the elements or
>>boom, whichever is greater, or does it occur at some angle in between where
>>the wind catches some of both areas?
>It depends on the area exposed at any given angle. If you had a two element
>yagi, whose elements give you 2 sq. ft. of surface when looking at them from
>90 deg., and a boom that gives you 4 sq ft at 90 deg.you might find an angle
>in between that gives you less, but as you turn off of the 90 deg. points,
>the wind loading usually increases by adding more of perpendicular component.
I think if you work the math, you will find ANY ANGLE in between broadside
to the elements and broadside to the boom exposes MORE surface to the wind
than the smaller of element-only area or boom-only area. It sounds to me
like there is something more to consider here than simply the amount of area
exposed to the wind, like the angle that exposed area makes with the wind,
maybe. It is generally accepted, for example, that elements and booms being
round, catch less wind than if they were square, even with the same area
exposed to the wind. So it is not a simple case of how much area is exposed
to the wind. It also depends on the shape of the area and how "streamlined"
the shape is. Round members are more streamlined than square ones. I am
sure there are better streamlined shapes than round.
Here is what I am trying to say: Take a simple example of a square plate
one foot on a side with wind blowing at a 45 degree angle to its surface.
It will obviously catch less wind than if the wind were blowing straight at
the full exposed surface. At 45 degrees, the surface of the plate exposed
to wind is 0.707 square foot. Is the force imparted to the plate at 45
degrees 0.707 of the force imparted when the wind is blowing straight at the
surface of the plate? I don't think you can get the answer by simple
intuition since there are complex fluid dynamics involved and I don't
pretend to understand them. I think we are learning why aircraft companies
spend lots of money on wind tunnels. It ain't a simple problem!!
Stan W7NI at teleport.com
>From David & Barbara Leeson <0005543629 at mcimail.com> Mon Jan 22 07:47:00 1996
From: David & Barbara Leeson <0005543629 at mcimail.com> (David & Barbara Leeson)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 96 02:47 EST
Subject: More Wind
Message-ID: <70960122074707/0005543629NA1EM at MCIMAIL.COM>
Stan, W7NI, raises two questions that help clarify some issues of
1. Does an antenna, if left to rotate to any position it wants to,
rotate to the position of least wind resistance?
The answer is no, it rotates to the position of zero net torque about
its attachment point. The torque is the sum of the forces on each of the
separate parts of the antenna operating through its lever arm to the
attachment point. The whole antenna can have arbitrary behavior of wind area
with angle; the antenna tries to rotate to the angle where the sum of the
torques balances to zero, not to the angle of minimum effective area. This
only involves the total wind area if antenna is offset from the mast.
Balancing the boom and elements about the mast reduces the torque at all
angles, thus reducing the rotating and braking torque required of the rotator
and mast. The newer wind-force models suggest that the element locations
have no first-order effect on mast torque, although they do affect boom
strength requirements. But even if the boom and elements are balanced, there
seem to be torques about the stable points that aren't predicted by the wind
force models, with the visible result that gusts and shifts in wind direction
cause weathervaning and rotator damage. It's not clear whether this residual
effect, possibly due to shadowing of, say, the boom by the elements, is
smaller with the elements or the boom aligned with the wind.
2. Does maximum antenna wind loading occur broadside to the elements or
boom, whichever is greater, or does it occur at some angle in between
where the wind catches some of both areas?
The effect of total wind-loading area is felt mainly in the side forces on
the mast and tower. I'm satisfied that the more recently published
wind-force models are closer to the facts, based on references and
experiment. So the answer to the second question is that the maximum wind
force occurs broadside to the greater of element or boom, which implies that
antenna areas have historically been slightly overstated.
Strange as it may seem at first glance, if the force on a cylinder at an
angle to the wind is perpendicular to the axis (that is, there's essentially
no viscous force along the axis), then the force is not in the same direction
as the wind. The ratio of pressure forces to viscous forces is the Reynolds
number, which is roughly 10,000 for typical HF antenna elements at normal
The new and old models predict quite different behavior; the
EIA-222-E/ASCE 74 model predicts that the effective area of a cylinder
varies with wind angle as cos^2 and that the force is perpendicular to the
element axis, while the older RS-222-C model predicts variation as cos^1 and
the force is in the direction of the wind itself. This business about the
force being in a different direction from the wind takes a bit of getting
used to, but it's well documented and also worked that way in my "wind
tunnel", so I believe the newer models are a useful improvement. Even though
the minimum rather than maximum area occurs at an oblique angle to the wind,
the predicted differences aren't anything to write home about, and you
probably should pocket the difference as a safety factor rather than try to
cash it in on a bigger antenna.
Aerodynamics doesn't lend itself to easy modeling, including the fact that
drag coefficient isn't constant with wind speed and it's less with certain
surface roughness than with smooth surfaces (thus, dimpled golf balls). None
of the simple wind-force models predict vortex shedding (which causes fatigue
failures in elements and booms) or torques and stable points in symmetrical
structures. There was an interesting article in a recent New Yorker about
the case of a professional engineer's aerodynamic design error that could
have toppled a Manhattan skyscraper if left uncorrected, so even the experts
have a lot of unfinished business.
In real life, the wind at one end of a big antenna isn't necessarily the
same as at the other end, so it doesn't seem to pay to rely too much on the
accuracy of simple models. Also, the elements deflect both due to gravity
and wind, and this requires another level of sophistication. Models can give
an idea of what to do to make a stronger antenna, but eventually you're left
at the point of putting it up and seeing what breaks.
I agree the priority should be survival of the mast and tower, then of the
boom, with elements being the least critical. This leads to pointing the
boom into the wind, even if the element area is bigger. Keeping a rotator
from breaking by weathervaning is a different problem, and although there's
something to be gained by lowering the torsional forces by using a torque
isolator or long mast, today's rotators just aren't up to braking or rotating
the size antennas we are putting up.
73 de Dave, W6QHS
More information about the CQ-Contest