Sean E. Kutzko tigger at
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 (John Brosnahan)  Mon Jan 22 03:28:05 1996
From: broz at (John Brosnahan) (John Brosnahan)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 20:28:05 -0700
Subject: Log Checking for Uniques
Message-ID: <199601220328.UAA26212 at>

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!  


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

John Brosnahan  
La Salle Research Corp      24115 WCR 40     La Salle, CO 80645  USA
voice 970-284-6602            fax 970-284-0979           email broz at

>From Steven Sample <aa9ax at>  Mon Jan 22 04:08:33 1996
From: Steven Sample <aa9ax at> (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>  Mon Jan 22 04:11:03 1996
From: Maxime Caron <mcaron at> (Maxime Caron)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 23:11:03 -0500
Subject: ARRL VHF SS Score
Message-ID: <9601220411.AA05193 at>

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.

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.

Maxime Caron

>From Stuart R. Crawford VE6SRC" <crawfors at  Mon Jan 22 04:28:58 1996
From: Stuart R. Crawford VE6SRC" <crawfors at (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
73, Stu

Stuart R. Crawford VE6SRC
Calgary Rep ARLA

Phone (403) 247-1063
Fax (403) 247-1063

Member of:


Visit the ARLA Home Page


>From Earl_Dery at (Earl Dery)  Mon Jan 22 04:46:58 1996
From: Earl_Dery at (Earl Dery) (Earl Dery)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 20:46:58 -0800
Subject: Log checking
Message-ID: <m0teEAL-0004dMC at>

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.

Earl VE7IN

>From w6go at (Jay O'Brien - W6GO)  Mon Jan 22 05:58:20 1996
From: w6go at (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>

Thanks, John!

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 

73, Jay
    w6go at

>From w7ni at (Stan Griffiths)  Mon Jan 22 06:19:05 1996
From: w7ni at (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 22:19:05 -0800
Subject: Pointing Yagis in the Wind
Message-ID: <199601220619.WAA27283 at>

W7NI said:

>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?  

K8joe said:

>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 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

>From David & Barbara Leeson <0005543629 at>  Mon Jan 22 07:47:00 1996
From: David & Barbara Leeson <0005543629 at> (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
antenna survival.

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 
wind speeds.

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 mailing list