Tony Wanschura tonyjw at primenet.com
Wed Jun 26 08:21:00 EDT 1996

I'm very saddened to hear of Charlie's passing.

I haven't done much contesting in recent years, but before shutting 
down I would always turn the beam to California and listen for his 
characteristic fist and code speed. We'd briefly exchange greetings 
and news, knowing that we'd certainly run across each other again in 
the next cw ss or cw sprint.

I met Charlie and his wife a few years ago as they passed through 
Minnesota enroute to their anticipated retirement property in 
northern Wisconsin.  He and I had a few beers together and talked 
contesting far into the night.  He was my friend, an enthusiastic 
contester, and a good man.  I will miss him.

KM0O     (kayMOO)

>From syam at Glue.umd.edu (De Syam)  Wed Jun 26 13:27:24 1996
From: syam at Glue.umd.edu (De Syam) (De Syam)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 08:27:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: The CW Requirement, ITU and IARU
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960626082037.591A-100000 at cappuccino.eng.umd.edu>

I have been somewhat surprised by the parochial nature of the
discussion of the "shall we continue to to require CW?" argument on
here, as though the United States were the only country in the
world.  The IARU FASC document is a "first cut" by the FASC to make
a blueprint so that at WRC-99 amateur radio, as we know it, can be
preserved worldwide.  The FASC has asked for, and sincerely wants,
your comments.  Its document is simply the most efficient way it
feels that there is to "get the ball rolling."  Most people will
comment in a more focused way if they have a reference document to
comment about. 
Let's state some facts:
1) When -- and if -- the ITU decides in 1997 to drop RR 2735 from
its regulations, this action will PERMIT, but will NOT REQUIRE, the
FCC to allow amateurs who have not "demonstrated knowledge of the
Morse Code" to operate on bands below 30 MHz.   In order to effect
such a major change in U.S. regulations, the FCC, under the
Administrative Procedures Act, would be required to issue a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and allow a reasonable period for
public comments and petitions for reconsideration.  As far as I
have been able to observe, the FCC has always taken this
responsibility very seriously, and has always incorporated elements
of the comments and petitions from the public in its final
regulations resulting from NPRM's.  The most recent example has
been the way the FCC handled the Vanity Callsign matter.   The
beginning date of the program was held up for more than a year
while the Commission considered several petitions for
reconsideration, and incorporated elements of some, in its final
2) Despite the "knowledge of Morse Code" requirement, at least one
country -- Japan -- has long allowed amateurs who have not
demonstrated such knowledge access to the HF bands.  Specifically,
amateurs there who have passed only an examination on general
knowledge of theory and regulations have been permitted to operate
on the 40, 15 and 10 meter bands, phone only, with 10 watts of
power (soon to be raised to 20 watts).  These stations have helped
fatten our phone contest scores for years.  When Japanese
authorities were asked about this, they said they were strictly
following ITU regulations, which allow anyone to operate on any
RECEIVED."  And none were.
3) Since RR 2735 does NOT require that any particular speed be
demonstrated in the Morse Code examinations, countries have enjoyed
a wide latitude as to how to satisfy themselves as to the Morse
Code knowledge of their applicants for HF licenses.  When I lived
in Colombia and operated with the HK3A multi-single group, I
noticed that one of the operators, Batty, HK3AXT -- a YL -- who is
one of the finest phone contest operators I have ever had the
privilege of operating with, never operated the CW contests.  I
asked her why.  She said that her Morse Code examination was like
this:  Examiner: "What is Morse Code for the letter 'A'?"  Batty:
"Dit dah."  Examiner: "Congratulations, you passed!"  Yes, folks,
this is completely in accordance with the ITU regulations AS THEY
EXIST RIGHT NOW.  Why do you think there are so many more Latin
American stations in phone contests than CW contests?  (I hasten to
add that in CE, CX, LU and PY, at least, the examinations are a lot
more like ours).
Now suppose you are an IARU official looking ahead to WRC-99, and
you realize that there are some 30 to 35 African countries, each
with a vote equal to that of the United States, which have no
citizens who are hams.  For people in these countries, ham radio is
something the foreigners do for their own particular type of
amusement.  You also know that in the few African countries where
there are a fair number of citizens who are hams, and where ham
radio therefore has a local constituency which can bring pressure
on its countries' ITU delegates, it is generally because a key
person in that country was drawn into amateur radio by a particular
happenstance or action.  For example, you know that in Ghana, Kofi
Jackson has long been a Senior Advisor on Telecommunications to the
government.  You also know that Kofi is 9G1AJ and a strong
supporter of amateur radio only because W4ACN, when he ran a State
Department radio repair facility for West Africa which happened to
be located in Ghana, took some gear to Kofi's house, erected a 60-
foot tower in Kofi's back yard, put a tribander on it, and said:
"Congratulations, Kofi, you are now a ham.  Issue yourself a
license!"  Did Kofi take a CW exam?  You've gotta be kidding.  Is
Ghana's vote in favor of amateur radio "in the bag" because of
Kofi?  You bet!  Would he enjoy ham radio if he were limited to VHF
and above?  Who would he be QSO'ing, pray tell?
You know that, with WRC-99 three years away, you need to find a few
more Kofis around Africa in order to get some votes lined up in
amateur radio's favor.  Are these busy people going to take the
time to learn CW for something they barely know about the benefits
of right now?  Is RR 2735 a help or a hindrance to amateur radio's
cause in this respect?  Meanwhile you know authoritarian
governments use regulations such as RR 2735 deliberately as an
excuse to keep local ham populations down.  You know that in the
age of the spectrum auction, revenue strapped governments in the
"third world" are being visited daily by representatives of various 
telecommunications firms offering pots of money for certain slices
of the spectrum.  You thank your lucky stars that things aren't
worse only because major players such as Ericsson, Nokia and
Motorola have senior executives who are active hams and look out
for ham radio's interests when they can.  
Wake up, folks!  What good is CW to you if you don't have any bands
you can use it on?  Let's cut the ARRL and IARU a little slack so
they can maneuver in this complicated world without having the
house dogs nipping at their heels.
                                         Very 73,
                                      Fred Laun, K3ZO
                                   (Editor, IARU Region II News)  

>From wrt at eskimo.com (Bill Turner)  Wed Jun 26 13:28:48 1996
From: wrt at eskimo.com (Bill Turner) (Bill Turner)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 05:28:48 -0700
Subject: cw forever?
Message-ID: <199606261228.FAA05357 at mail.eskimo.com>

At 09:35 PM 6/24/96 GMT, Barry Kutner wrote:
>Dave - As a CW and Digital contester, I can tell you the following:
>99 44/100 percent of all digital contesting takes place in good ol
>Baudot/RTTY mode. The newer burst modes such as Clover and Pactor, while 
>having good error-correction and weak signal reception, fall apart in 
>condx when there is more than one signal calling at once. There is (was) 
>an AMTOR contest, but I believe it died. Also, CQs are called in FEC 
>mode, which is a one-way xmsn much like Baudot. Only after the FEC call 
>is decoded, does one then switch to the ARQ (error-correcting) burst 
>mode. This is a slow process, analogous to your telephone modem going 
>thru its handshaking process.
>For quick exchanges, as done in a contest, Baudot/RTTY wins hands down
>for speed. 73 Barry
Barry brings up a good point, and there's something I've been wondering that
perhaps the more knowledgeable communication engineers could answer:  On a
character-for-character basis, are the "TOR" modes any better than plain 'ol
Baudot RTTY?   I suspect the answer is no, they're not.  Don't they gain
what advantage they have from their error correction ability, rather than
the ability to receive individual characters correctly in the first place?

73, Bill  W7LZP
wrt at eskimo.com

>From wrt at eskimo.com (Bill Turner)  Wed Jun 26 13:28:57 1996
From: wrt at eskimo.com (Bill Turner) (Bill Turner)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 05:28:57 -0700
Subject: Why I had to wait to become a ham
Message-ID: <199606261229.FAA05383 at mail.eskimo.com>

At 11:03 PM 6/24/96 -0400, AA3JU wrote:
<big snip>
>Contests will be seen as worthless use of spectrum interfereing with orderly
>long distance nets and eventually either outlawed or so horribly interfered
>with that contesting will be no fun at all.
>At this juncture and I am adressing my elders in this hobby in this sport of
>radio contesting why should I continue to work hard to join your ranks?
>Please send me no flame mail.  I am sad and I am frustrated.  What can I do
>to help prevent this dark but unfortunately likely scenario from occuring?
For starters, you could publicize the fact that contesting is (IMHO) the
best way to really learn about operating a station - better than dxing,
better than ragchewing, better than nets, better than any other facet of the
hobby.  I've been a ham since 1957, but only a serious contester since
January of 1994.  In those two and a half years, I've learned more about ham
radio than in all the previous years put together.  For example, two years
ago in the 10-meter contest, I observed first hand how ten sounds in the
pre-dawn hours when there are lots of midwest and east coast stations on but
the band is not really open here on the west coast.  There was a combination
of meteor pings and ionospheric scatter that enabled me to work a half-dozen
stations on a band that was supposedly "dead".  Fascinating!  Without the
contest incentive, it would have never happened.  I'm sure lots of other
contesters have similar stories to tell.  I know I could go on and on....
does that start to answer your question?

73, Bill  W7LZP
wrt at eskimo.com

>From rlboyd at CapAccess.org (Rich L. Boyd)  Wed Jun 26 13:31:38 1996
From: rlboyd at CapAccess.org (Rich L. Boyd) (Rich L. Boyd)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 08:31:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Kenwood Repair??
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91-FP.960626082952.985F-100000 at cap1.capaccess.org>

On Wed, 26 Jun 1996 Sjolin at aol.com wrote:

> I sent my 940 to California back in '89. They had it repaired and shipped
> back in ten days. Problem was they shipped it to someone in Nebraska and I
> live in Missouri. They sent me his two meter radio. Not an even trade.
> The guy who got my radio didn't have a telephone so Kenwood sent him a letter
> (not even a FEDEX). He wouldnt ship the 940 back unless kenwood sent him the
> money for shipping in advance. Once that was worked out it was shipped UPS
> from Nebraska to California, then back to Missouri. I got my radio back
> almost three weeks after I received the two meter radio. Over a month in
> total.
> 73 de Dave, N0IT
Reminds me of an experience I had with Autek some years ago -- they 
shipped it to the wrong person who happened to have my same name, in my 
same town (I was amazed to learn there were three of us in the same town 
by the same name!)  Autek refused to help me get the thing, felt they 
had met their obligations once they had shipped it, tho they had shipped 
it to the wrong person.  And...the guy who received it had given it to 
his father, who happened to be a ham!  He did eventually get it back for 
me (it was a keyer).  Thanks a lot, Autek!  73 - Rich Boyd KE3Q

>From dnorris at k7no.com (Dean Norris)  Wed Jun 26 15:11:56 1996
From: dnorris at k7no.com (Dean Norris) (Dean Norris)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 07:11:56 -0700
Subject: Steve Mendelsohn's letter
Message-ID: < at mail.syspac.com>

At 22:01 6/25/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Didn't he say 20% of the "HAM POPULATION"?  NOT 20% of the U.S.
>Population, which would be about 50,000,000 people.  20% of the ham
>population is more like 120,000 people.
>Just a thought!
>Steve / AA9AX

I promise to learn how to read.  Gad, I read stuff all day, u think I would
be a bit more observant at home.

Sorry all!  Mea culpa

>On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Dean Norris wrote:
>> At 18:30 6/25/96 PDT, you wrote:
>> >Aren't we missing the point here? ARRLs flat membership ( based on their QST
>> >circulation data which includes other than members ) represents about 20%
>> of the
>> >US ham population. 
>> What?  That would be 50,000,000, 50 million.  No way!  I think you added a
>> few 0000's to the copy?  Or...if I am wrong, god help us.  Where did you see
>> those figures.  I have been a member for 40 years and a life member for 20+.
>> If you could tell which issue quotes those figures I would like to see them..
>> 73/DX
>> cdn
>>            C. Dean Norris
>>       Amateur Radio Station K7NO             
>>       e-mail to dnorris at k7no.com             
>>     http://www.syspac.com/~dnorris/
           C. Dean Norris
      Amateur Radio Station K7NO             
      e-mail to dnorris at k7no.com             

>From floydjr at Interpath.com (Jimmy R. Floyd)  Wed Jun 26 13:00:28 1996
From: floydjr at Interpath.com (Jimmy R. Floyd) (Jimmy R. Floyd)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 09:00:28 -0300
Subject: FD 96 Scores II
Message-ID: <199606261422.KAA19468 at mail-hub.interpath.net>

High Claimed Raw Scores

Compiled by

Date Posted: 06/26/96

CALL          CLASS       SECT        SCORE            QSO'S      
                                                   CW        SSB = TOTAL

KM0L           1A          MO         5,920       1110       290    1400

KO4EW          2A          TN         6,376        859      1030    1889
N0SS           2A          MO         5,774       1052       333    1385
KN6OX          2A          SV         4,668        664       806    2134
KX3J           2A         MDC         3,186        366       711    1077

K600EID        3A          GA         1,116         67       424     558

K4BFT          5A          AL        16,070       1816      3675    5491

N4ND           6A          VA         4,205        741       370    1113

KE3Q           1B         MDC         5,500       1080       150    1230
K7QD           1B          ID         2,084        521         0     521

K8HVT          1C         NLI         2,506        526       201     727

K7UP  HP       1D          NM         3,345        622      2101    2723
WA4ZXA         1D          NC         2,766          0      1581    1581 
WB0OLA         1D          IN           472        132         0     132
WB5M           1D         WTX             8          0         4       4 

KC7KFF         2D          AZ         1,212         68       521     589

KM9P           1E          GA         6,304       1576         0    1576
N4BP  QRP      1E         SFL         5,435        458       171     629
KK5ZX          1E          LA           798        198         3     399



This is my first attempt at the FD scores on here. I did breakdown the CW 
and SSB contacts. I feel that this will be the majority of the contacts. 
There just is not enough room to break down all the 2,6, 440, pkt, sat and
other contacts. Also not really enough room for all the Bonus pts. I did
not put the hours in since everyone should have done basically 24 hours. 
Also I am sorry but I cannot put an op list on this one. Not sure there 
would be enough bandwidth in my email if I started listing ops for some of
those 20A stations. 

I will take any suggestions on this and if possible I will try to work 
them in. Just remember that if I change something it means that I must go
back through all the email and reread them and update the scores. Can be
quite time comsuming. 


73's Jim
           * Jimmy R. Floyd  (Jim)   Thomasville, NC                *
           *                                                        *
           * Amateur Call:              >> WA4ZXA <<                *
           * Packet Node:               >> N4ZC <<                  *
           * Internet Address:          >> floydjr at interpath.com << *

>From ac1o at gate.net (Walter Deemer)  Wed Jun 26 15:41:50 1996
From: ac1o at gate.net (Walter Deemer) (Walter Deemer)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 10:41:50 -0400
Subject: Work Them Dupes!
Message-ID: <199606261441.KAA69010 at osceola.gate.net>

Until just recently, I've been a "clean log" person.  Yes, I'd work a dupe
even though my computer was beeping insistently at me, but I wouldn't bother
putting the station in my log (again).  The comments and collective wisdom
on this reflector, though, made me switch to the generally-recommended "log
everything" policy in the recent WPX contest.

One incident, late in the contest, drove the wisdom of the "work -- and log
-- them dupes" approach home rather forcibly.  The stage was set during the
first night of the contest, when the QRM on 40 was just incredible.  As a
low power entrant, I was S&Ping at the time, and was amazed at how many
times TWO stations would come back to my call.  Even though I carefully
responded with "HA1XYX 599063", more often that not I'd still get a "QSL"
from both stations -- and usually never did find out who station #2 was.

Cut to the chase.  It's the last half hour of the contest.  I'm trying to
push the score meter over The Last Hurdle.  Multipliers are worth their
weight in gold.  I find one: the only station in the contest I've heard from
this country (and a really good op, too; the call's unimportant).  I call.
The response: "AC1O QSO B4".  Aargh -- the guy is absolutely, positively NOT
in my log (he was probably one of those first-night doubles).  I try
desparately to nab the mult, and send "NOT IN MY LOG; PSE DUPE ME".  The DX
station proceeds to send me the time of our (non-)QSO, the serial number he
sent me, and the number I "sent" him.  Heck; he could have also told me my
mother's maiden name -- he was still NOT in my log.  A simple re-QSO on his
part would have saved all that time and trouble (and I'm not sure I ever did
make it into his log that second time...).

Then I got to wondering: What do the log-checkers do in a case like this?
The first QSO was logged by the DX station; in error, to be sure -- but I
was still in HIS log.  The second QSO, though, was the only valid one on
both ends.  I recalled K3ZO's voicing some very real frustration afrer a
recent ARRL contest; he logged the wrong power for his first French QSO, and
the log-checkers deleted not just the contact -- but the whole French
multiplier!  (Even though Fred had worked several dozen French stations on
that band!)  So: How should the other station manage the situation so that
the first QSO is the busted one, the second one is a valid one, and he gets
credit for the "AC1" mult?

This is especially important given the fast-approaching WRTC competition.
52 closely-matched teams are going to be operating in unfamiliar
surroundings, where the chance for making mistakes is above normal, the
final separation between at least some of the teams may be minimal, and the
penalty for logging errors is severe.  It thus seems to me a "work -- and
log -- 'em all" approach is especially important in the IARU contest.  It
also seems to me that the judges should make it clear to all concerned --
team members and the rest of us alike -- what the policy is on duplicates,
especially where penalties are involved, so that we can all do our best to
minimize their impact.  I'd hate to think the difference between one spot
and the next in the final WRTC standings was the result of a logging error.
I'd feel even worse if the error was partially my fault -- and preventable.

73, Walt, AC1O
WWW: http://www.4w.com/deemer; amateur radio, news, weather & financial info. 

>From kl7y at alaska.net (Dan Robbins)  Wed Jun 26 16:55:09 1996
From: kl7y at alaska.net (Dan Robbins) (Dan Robbins)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 07:55:09 -0800
Subject: The CW Requirement, ITU and IARU
Message-ID: <9606261555.AC23358 at alaska.net>

At 08:27 AM 6/26/96 -0400, Fred Laun, K3ZO wrote:

>Let's state some facts:

>2) Despite the "knowledge of Morse Code" requirement, at least one
>country -- Japan -- has long allowed amateurs who have not
>demonstrated such knowledge access to the HF bands.  Specifically,
>amateurs there who have passed only an examination on general
>knowledge of theory and regulations have been permitted to operate
>on the 40, 15 and 10 meter bands, phone only, with 10 watts of
>power (soon to be raised to 20 watts).  These stations have helped
>fatten our phone contest scores for years.  

Yes, but I have worked both JA and US pileups on 6 meters and the Japanese
VHFers are far superior than their US counterparts when it comes to CW.
This despite a no-code entry license.  Why?  Isn't it true that CW knowledge
is required to move up from the QRP level in Japan?  Here the CW plum is HF,
over there its mo' power.  While I don't know if it is the intended result,
CW knowledge is still a filter to separate the passing fancy from the
dedicated interest, even in Japan.  Also, the score fattening JA QRPers have
been on a diet - you just can't run them like you used to.  Maybe the grand
codeless HF experiment isn't so grand after all.  Of course, the USA has had
a codeless non-licensed HF quagmire for years - 11 meter CB, a real radio
ghetto, which has unfortunately spread through much of the world.  I think
that is a much better example of what relaxing standards will yield.  Let's
face it, some third-world Obi-wan is not going to hook up a reverb and a
laughbox to his rig and park it on 14195 - they will do it here, however,
(and in some other countries) with worldwide implications.  

To keep the trash out of your radio, you should have good filtering as early
in the signal chain as possible.

                                Dan  KL7Y

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list