CQ mag cover

[K8DO at aol.com]

Yo, Bill.... Nice setup... now if the photographer had understood that you
can't tilt down a wide angle lens because it causes convergence
distortion....  or does your tower really lean over like that?......   :)

Cheers   ...   Denny

>From Rich L. Boyd" <rlboyd at CapAccess.org  Fri Mar 22 19:39:25 1996
From: Rich L. Boyd" <rlboyd at CapAccess.org (Rich L. Boyd)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 14:39:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: truly local clubs
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91-FP.960322143607.18692K-100000 at cap1.capaccess.org>


Correction, in a previous message, I meant to say stations farther than 
20 miles apart may be sending in their scores together as a local club.  
According to my understanding of it, even if it's just two stations, if 
they're over the distance limit, they're in the medium club category!

I'm not seriously suggesting more categories, but creation of a "truly 
local club" category (everyone within a mile or two of each other!!) I 
guess would do it.  hihi.

To really blow the grading curve, how about a local club -- what's the 
limit, 10 logs? -- all 10 guys go out on separate DXpeditions.  That 
should really lay down the benchmark for all the other local clubs.  
Sounds like the kind of thing some of our California contest brethren 
would do -- don't most of them go on DXpeditions every contest?  hi.

73

Rich Boyd KE3Q


>From Rich L. Boyd" <rlboyd at CapAccess.org  Fri Mar 22 19:43:35 1996
From: Rich L. Boyd" <rlboyd at CapAccess.org (Rich L. Boyd)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 14:43:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Taking down Rohn 25
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91-FP.960322144047.18692L-100000 at cap1.capaccess.org>


A local professional told us last year of a Rohn 25 that was guyed and 
house bracketed.  At ground level it had completedly rusted through on 
all three legs, so that there was nothing supporting it at ground level 
-- the building bracket was doing all the supporting, plus some guy 
wires.  The part between the bracket and the ground (except for a couple 
inches of gap) was just hanging there!

Additionally, the tower was in an alleyway with power lines nearby in a 
couple directions.  Definitely a job for competent professionals with a 
crane truck.  Be careful.

Rich Boyd KE3Q


>From Douglas S. Zwiebel" <104141.2660 at compuserve.com  Fri Mar 22 19:44:13 1996
From: Douglas S. Zwiebel" <104141.2660 at compuserve.com (Douglas S. Zwiebel)
Date: 22 Mar 96 14:44:13 EST
Subject: local club DxPeditions
Message-ID: <960322194412_104141.2660_IHO54-1 at CompuServe.COM>

Well, this is about the only contest-related matter on here in so
long, guess I can throw in my comments.

Two points of view here:

A) The new ARRL rule allowing DxPed to count will POTENTIALLY
   alter how local clubs go about their business.  If you can't
   see that allowing DxPed in the local category could have a
   DRAMATIC impact on how the game is played by that group, you
   are either blind or stupid; maybe both.

B) Alternately, allowing DxPed for local clubs is simply the next
   logical step in an illogical category.  The concept of local
   club is valid, however some local clubs have access to and
   actually utilize mega-stations.  How can a local club category
   include a group of folks with "local" type antennas (what I 
   would characterize as the new CQWW "tribander and single wires"
   category, with a member (or more) who have 3,4,5, or 6 towers,
   multiple stacked antennas, tons of heliax(R), and so on.  The
   discrepancy is clear.  So as I say, this is only the next
   logical progression in an illogical grouping.

Certainly, it has been unwise of the ARRL in the past to EXCLUDE
DxPedtions...it hurt the clubs, the contesters and, to be sure,
the contest itself.  CQWW has not had such a limitation, but
NEITHER did they have various categories of CLUBS either!  I 
wonder if the powers that be at the League even thought this
change through?  If they didn't, shame on them.  If they did,
let's hear about it: what was the logic?  [I know, some league
member is going to say: "if you want an answer, don't direct
the question to the general forum, send it to the league.  I
really don't care...if YOU care...send the question to the ARRL.]
There, that's saves another nebulous retort.

Personally, I can understand the reasoning for both sides, but
since I don't care much about clubs (except that they are vital
to the contest and add needed activity), I can't get excited
about this latest ruling.

de Doug   KR2Q


>From Bill Fisher  KM9P <km9p at akorn.net>  Fri Mar 22 20:06:02 1996
From: Bill Fisher  KM9P <km9p at akorn.net> (Bill Fisher KM9P)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 15:06:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: variable exchanges
Message-ID: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960322145808.24373A-100000 at paris.akorn.net>



On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, Gary Nieborsky wrote:

> I had an opportunity to compare my log to someone elses for ARRL CW DX and
> came across a strange item.  On a number of same station, same band,
> different time QSO's in the two logs I found that the power part of the
> exchange was not always the same. This lead me to dig deeper and check for
> back-to-back (or reasonably close) QSO's.  In three of them I found that the
> exchange was different.  This sent me to the tapes.  The tapes showed that
> indeed the dx station had sent something different each time. The other
> station is close enough to have a readable backscatter signal so I was able
> to hear his exchange.  One of the Q's was 100 vs. 200....understandable in
> the heat of battle.  However, 2 were KW vs. 100/500 ..... not so understandable.
> 
> My question is this:  Is this common?  I know on different bands you can get
> different power reports (if you accept the auto-fill feature it can really
> mess you up) and later in the test you might find someone that cooked the
> amp and is giving out a true power.


I would reply directly, but I think this is an interesting topic.  I have 
noted many times in the ARRL contest that the calling station will be 
unreadable.  When I finally give up and send a CQ, the same station 
reappears VERY READABLE.  

What I believe is happening, is that many stations try to see how little 
power they can run to work a given station.  Start at 500mw and work up 
until he works me.  

If this is true, there are a number of stations that change their power 
during the course of the contest depending on how good the ears are of 
the station they are calling.  I always log what I copy for a power.  I 
use the previously copied power only as a guide(guess)line for the 
current QSO.  If they are different, I will sometimes ask the station to 
repeat.  I NEVER go back and change a previous QSO's power unless it's a 
carib station or a big effort that I know wouldn't change the power.

73

bill


>From Tom Morrison <t.morrison at liant.com>  Fri Mar 22 14:11:00 1996
From: Tom Morrison <t.morrison at liant.com> (Tom Morrison)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 14:11:00
Subject: SURVEY: Amateur Logging Data Interchange Format
Message-ID: <9603222017.AA09043 at rmc.liant.com>

The following survey is intended to gather information for those of
us who have been discussing a standardized means of exchanging
data among amateur radio logging programs (known as ADIF).  This
effort started from a basis of contesting, so with the tacit consent
of the ADIF group, I am submitting this to the subscribers to
cq-contest.  Responses are solicited from USERS, AUTHORS and
CONTEST SPONSORS.

The intent of this survey is data gathering.  The questions are
intended to promote informative replies.  Please feel free to go
beyond the questions.

Please e-mail me directly at t.morrison at liant.com.  ADIF members will
receive a summary; if you are not subscribed to ADIF and wish a summary,
let me know.



What is/are the main reason(s) we need a standard for data
interchange?

What advantages do you expect from a data interchange standard
for amateur radio logging programs?

As a USER of a logging program(s):
Which program(s) do you use?
Do you export/import data among different logging programs?
Do you export information from your logging program(s) for
use in other (nonamateur radio specific) programs?
What data field(s) are absolutely required for export/import?
What data field(s), while not absolutely necessary, are highly
desired for export/import?
Would you expect an ADIF standard to allow a log to be
exported from one contest logging program and imported
into another so that the receiving program would
be able to accurately score the log without additional
information (provided both programs claimed support for
a contest)?
Are you sure the author(s) of your program(s) are participating
in the ADIF standardization effort?

Are you an AUTHOR of a amateur radio logging program?  If so:
Is it designed primarily for contesting? for DXing?
What are the system requirements for your software?
What formats do you currently import?  Export?
What is(are) the implementation language(s) of your software?
For contesting programs:
How do you configure (rules, multipliers, etc.) for various contests?
Do you maintain a callsign "database" among/between contests?
Do you suggest correct callsigns from partial callsigns?
How do you resolve multiplier status that cannot be derived from
the callsign?

Are you a CONTEST SPONSOR?  If so:
What contest(s) do you sponsor?
Would you accept ADIF files as submissions for your contest(s)?
What data would submitted logs be absolutely required to contain?
What data would submitted logs ideally contain?
Would you be willing to use ADIF as a means to distribute contest
information such as multipliers?  Scoring information?





Tom Morrison, T.Morrison at liant.com
Liant Software Corporation
512-719-7019  FAX:512-719-7070  WWW: http://www.liant.com/



>From Rich L. Boyd" <rlboyd at CapAccess.org  Fri Mar 22 20:37:53 1996
From: Rich L. Boyd" <rlboyd at CapAccess.org (Rich L. Boyd)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 15:37:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Big clubs...or not
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91-FP.960322153206.7019G-100000 at cap1.capaccess.org>


I guess "big club" is a relative term.  K3LR says his contest club, NCC, 
has 33 members, which makes it a medium club for ARRL, and not at the top 
of the medium range as PVRC has been for some years (almost 50 but not 
quite.)  We think we'll be over 50 in upcoming published results in the 
forseeable future.

PVRC has spent no effort trying to influence the contest sponsors in any 
way, has had no agenda items it's pursued with the contest sponsors.  I 
heard the various rover rule changes come up, but PVRC never took any 
position as a club.  I'm sure individuals affected did make their views 
known, though.

PVRC has spent all its effort trying to have a good time with our 
contesting experience, getting to know the other area contesters, share 
hints and kinks, and to make our club more effective at contesting under 
the existing rules -- we've given no effort to trying to change the rules 
to match up to our capabilities in some way.

I don't feel my comments are in response to any accusation; the previous 
discussion has just brought these thoughts to mind.  73

Rich Boyd KE3Q