Dayton + Plain language rules

frenaye at frenaye at
Thu May 23 21:26:17 EDT 1996

I hadn't been at Dayton in several years and thought the programs I sat in on 
were very good.  I saw parts of the antenna and the contest forums.  There 
were a couple of presentations that I would like to have copies of (How about 
making that part of the way Dayton forums are handled?  Have a hundred or 
more copies printed and available for those present). 

Maybe the authors will see if they can be published (QST CQ NCJ CQ-Contest, 
etc), or better yet (but less glory perhaps), how about giving the 
presentation to someone to put on a web page (KM9P KA9FOX and many others 
have good collections of articles started).  

I missed the W4BZ(?) presentation on raised radials versus buried radials - 
anyone care to summarize it here?

		73 Tom

PS: here's a first draft of plain language rules, anyone want to adapt it to 
explain the 10-minute rules in CQWW?
FCC Chairman Reed Hundt uses a sports analogy to explain the new rules of
competition for telecommunications companies:  "Suppose the competitor of
the local phone company were the Washington Redskins and the incumbent phone
company was the Dallas Cowboys.  Congress has said that the Redskins have
the right to borrow Emmit Smith for any number of plays.  That is called
unbundling an element of the incumbent's network.  And the Redskins can use
the entire Cowboy team at a discount off what Jerry Jones has paid them.
That's called resale.  Also the Redskins can hand off the ball to Smith if
their own runners aren't doing so well.  That's called interconnection.  If
Smith helps the Redskins get a touchdown, that's called termination, for
which some think the Cowboys should be paid nothing but the Skins should get
the points."  (Investor's Business Daily 20 May 96 A6)

E-mail: frenaye at  
Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box 386, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

>From jreid at (Jim Reid)  Fri May 24 02:13:03 1996
From: jreid at (Jim Reid) (Jim Reid)
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 15:13:03 -1000
Subject: CW Issue: From Dave Sumner, K1ZZ
Message-ID: < at>

I am forwarding the following to the reflectors with
the permision of Tom Francis, NM1Q.  While I do believe
that Dave Sumner's e-mail to me earlier today,  and posted
here, truly is his belief;  Tom is pointing to, perhpas
subconcious feelings of some on the FASC committee,
namely, the present recession in sales of amateur radio
hardware and publications, as reported by Steve, K7XLC
in another reflector posting today.

Where are the comments of the BIG GUNS of CW DX'ing and
Contesting about this issue?  Maybe they already know this
is a done deal.  If so,  we should at least articulate what it
is that new amateurs to the hobby/service should know and
be tested for in operating skills and technical knowledge,
should CW testing be dropped.

73, Jim

Forwarded message:

>Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 14:11:17 -0400
>X-Sender: tomf at
>To: jreid at (Jim Reid)
>From: Tom Francis <tomf at>
>Subject: Re: CW Issue: From Dave Sumner, K1ZZ
>At 07:26 AM 5/23/96 -1000, you wrote:
>>>Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 10:17:00 -0400
>>>From: "Sumner, Dave,  K1ZZ" <dsumner at>
>>>Just to clarify things, the present status of this matter is simply that a 
>>>committee created by the IARU Administrative Council and appointed by the 
>>>IARU president has generated and made public, for the purpose of stimulating 
>>>comment, a discussion paper that includes some tentative conclusions of the 
>        Jim: 
>        I think Dave has this wrong and he knows it. Section
>        9.14 states "the Committee (FASC) has concluded that 
>        S25.5 should be removed as a tready obligation of
>        administrations."
>        That does not sound like a tentative conclusoin to me.
>>>Neither has anything been decided by the ARRL. 
>        This is a fairly blantent equivication also.  If you
>        look at the make up of the ARRL committee and the
>        FASC committee the movers and shakers are the same.
>        The ARRL may not hve published a conclusion, but I
>        can assure you that they feel the same.
>An ARRL committee is working in parallel with the FASC, but that committee
>has not reported to the ARRL Board (the body that determines ARRL policy).
>Right now, that committee is determining how best to gauge membership
>opinion, which will be an important part of its eventual report.
>        Well, this part may be true, but what HQ is really
>        doing is trying to figure out how to reduce the
>        impact of their impending decision.
>        The plain fact is that it's a done deal - period - 
>        and at this point the only thing we can do is stir
>        up the membership and attempt to get them to change
>        their minds.
>        I wrote K1ZZ about this, but have yet to receive an
>        answer. I don't expect one either.
>        Keep up the good work drumming up support.
>        73
>        Tom, NM1Q (tomf at

>From jmaxwell at (Jim Maxwell)  Fri May 24 02:23:50 1996
From: jmaxwell at (Jim Maxwell) (Jim Maxwell)
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 18:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: FASC: Drop "CW", not a Joke!
Message-ID: <199605240123.SAA19210 at>

It seems to me that this thread, although important to DXers and
contesters, is going rather far afield.  However, having said that, I
simply cannot resist the temptation to respond to the posting by Pete,
KN6BI, who wrote, in part,

>Anyone know what % of ARRL membership are holders of the "No Code Tech."
>ticket.  I believe (I'm a member) the League's primary interest in Ham
>Radio is the marketing and selling of books and related items.  The money
>comes from publishing and the bigger the market the greater potential for

Pete's belief regarding the League's primary interest in ham radio is
incorrect.  The ARRL's mission is to serve amateur radio.  One of its most
important activities is defense of the service and its frequencies.  It
takes money to carry out its mission.  The principal sources of its income
are membership dues, sales of publications, and sales of advertising.  The
profits derived from sales are plowed right back into services for the
amateur radio community.

The League's financial statements are readily available: they're published
in QST.

73.  Jim, W6CF

>From jreid at (Jim Reid)  Fri May 24 02:23:25 1996
From: jreid at (Jim Reid) (Jim Reid)
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 15:23:25 -1000
Subject: CW Issue
Message-ID: < at>

Couple more thoughts form Tom, NM1Q and a disturbing note
to him from Gary, KN0Z:

>        Jim, (Tom's permission for me to repost his note)
>        Yep, no problem. Heck, I'll even let you
>        post a note not to "flame" you, just me,
>        hi hi...
>        I've attached a thoughtful and quite interest-
>        ing note from KN0Z about this same subject. It's=20
>        not conjecture, Gary has direct quotes from the=20
>        leadership of his section that are quite enlighten-
>        ing and much more suitable for quoting.
>        You might also want to read the post by SM7PKK for
>        some other interesting backgrounds. I've included
>        that in this message just in case you missed
>        it.
>        At this point, I'm not really sure what we can
>        do about this - at least those of us who care
>        about the hobby and CW.  After reading KN0Z's
>        note, it looks more bleak than ever...
>        BUT, as one of my personal hero's said, "There
>        is no dishonor in defeat, only in the lack of
>        trying."
>        Keep up the good work Jim.  I appreciate and
>        second your concerns.
>        My best to you and yours...
>        73
>        Tom, NM1Q
>        PS: Have you noticed a lack of any of the "big
>        guns" weighing in on this issue? I have and it
>        puzzles me...
>        73
>        Tom
>  Read your IARU comments with interest.  Last night the Twin City DX
>  Association had its monthly meeting.  Out guest speaker was K0TO, Tod
>  Olson, Dakota Division Director.  I had made copies of the 21 page IARU
>  Discussion Paper for all in attendance.  I specifically asked Tod what
>  was the ARRL official position regarding S25.5.  Tod indicated that they
>  (the League) had not established an official position, however the
>  present committee has stated their position (see 9.14).  Tod explained
>  that having had considerable contact with many of the member nations
>  representatives, that there was very little support to maintain the CW
>  requirement in its present form.  Apparently many of the smaller 3rd
>  world countries are finding it difficult from a resource standpoint to
>  find people to administrate the testing (lack of folks with CW
>  proficiency).  I asked if there was any possibility of changing this
>  viewpoint.  Tod indicated that although we are one of the larger member
>  countries, it is still a "one country, vote" issue.  There was also
>  a comment to the effect "we want to fight the ones we can have a chance
>  to win".  There is still a possibility that the S25.5 provisions will be
>  dropped from the conference due to the large number of issues to be
>  covered in a limited amount of time.  Odds given were 50/50.  The bottom
>  line is that the CW requirement will most likely be eliminated at the
>  International level.  Once this happens, it must still be ratified by
>  Congress to become an official change here.  Given the events that must
>  take place, it will likely be at least five to six years prior to any
>  real change here in the USA.  No doubt, this will change the face of Ham
>  Radio as we know it today!  The downside is that I see a glut of new
>  operators added to the already crowded SSB allocations.  It will be just
>  a matter of time till the SSB allocations must be expanded (at the
>  expense of the CW/Digital modes) to accommodate the masses.
>  I agree with you that it is time that we let the IARU, FASC, and the ARRL
>  know exactly how we feel.  Knowing that we will have very little chance
>  of maintaining the CW requirement, we must focus on the other areas of
>  IARU Discussion Paper.  Perhaps we can have some influence regarding the
>  content and methodology of the testing.  The examinations have been
>  reduced over the years to a "multiple guess" scenario.  If one fails the
>  test, no problem!  Simply take it again in ten minutes and continue to do
>  so till a passing grade is achieved.  There was a time when you were
>  required to go back to the books and couldn't retest for one month.  This
>  gave an individual time to "learn" the material.  Are you aware that
>  approximately 8% of those who have taken a test in the past four years,
>  have advanced using a "medical wavier" to avoid the CW requirement?  How
>  about the possibility of changing the present 6 levels of license to
>  something like three.  How about learning from our past and making the
>  "entry level" license a one year, nonrenewable ticket.  A year to
>  experiment and determine if there is interest.  If there is sufficient
>  interest, then the individual will strive to upgrade.  There are many
>  possibilities as far as change to the present methodology that we could
>  impact.  Everyone needs to let their representatives know their feelings
>  regarding the elimination of the CW requirement, in addition to giving
>  thought and suggestion on what WE want to see changed to the present
>  system.  Ham Radio IS going to change!  This is our opportunity to have
>  some input regarding its future.  If we fail to make our feelings known
>  and offer constructive ideas for change, then we will have to live with
>  the results.  This is no time for apathy!
>                                73 & GUD DX  de KN0Z  Gary in Wyoming, MN
>Hi all,
>I have read the paper and I think all people interested in our hobby=
>They are simply proposing to drop the CW regulation for a stupid reason.
>I have read the previous recommendations that IARU worked out between the
>years 1992 - 1994.
>The conclusion the Adhoc commitee came to was that it was dangerous to mess
>with the regulation=20
>due to several reasons. One being that it is so easy that things might get
>missinterpreted at the ITU meetings and that it is better to leave things=
>they are since it is working fine even though not perfect already. This has
>happened already at previous meeting when we almost lost our hobby all
>The other thing the Adhoc concluded was that there has not come up any
>dramatic change in the amateur radio service that would or could replace=
>CW. They did say that in the future there might be and that we should take=
>stand then.
>This point is still very valid (it=B4s only been two years since the IARU
>ADhoc wrote this)
>I urge everyone in the amateur community to read if not the whole document
>from the FASC atleast the points 9.12, 9.13 and 9.14. These point says it=
>My conclusion by reading those is that they interpret the Adhoc
>recommendation correct but totally IGNORE it for one very IGNORANT reason.=
>Simply that there is going to be a WRC meeting at which there is a chance=
>change things. To me it seems that it is more important to change it for=
>the wrong reasons than to keep it according to what the IARU themself has
>concluded before.=20
>It seem to be the name of the game these days. To change everything at all
>I am urging the IARU president and the IARU to give the FASC stricter lines
>to work on. I can not=20
>see that it can be possible by a committe like this to totally ignore
>recomendations done by the IARU only two years ago since they are totally=
>to date with the current situation. The only thing that has changed is that
>the items might be on the WRC schedule.
>I live in a country where de-regulation is the hip thing to do. We have=
>almost lost the whole amateur radio as such due to this. The government
>wanted EVERYONE to be able to talk radio. (it was their right they said)
>Everyone with a bit of sence know this would be the end. We can=B4t have CB
>all over! Luckilly the government had to control themself due to the
>international agreements that has been made and in our case especially the
>CEPT regulations. They even started to discuss which was recomendation and
>which was a binding treaty so they could minimise every regulation leaving
>us with a CB like regulation if they had succeded. I think that the IARU
>have done a lot to our hobby and should continue to do so. I am though
>convinced that NO CHANGES should be made (or any attempts) to the
>regulations unless it is very important and when this happens it should be
>prepared well in advance. Not like we are standing at a big edge having to
>jump into the unknown. It is ok to discuss the future but I think it=
>wrong to start by setting out the line by changing everything. IARU has a
>very big responsability !! Are you living  up to it when sending out a=
>like the one sent.
>CW is and will for years to come continue to be the only way of
>intercommunication between people from different culture and background.
>There still is no other mode where people can talk on equal terms=
>of income, language or other means that separate the peoples of the world.
>People tend to forget that in every radio, TV, computer, minicalculator or
>wrist-watch there is enough components to build a transmitter for CW in=
>of real emergency.
>I for one don=B4t want to see the hobby change towards computers in the way
>that fx packet spreads on the bands for any reason due to the reason that
>with this the radio is no longer the main purpose of the communication, the
>data is! For this we already have the perfect medium (internet)
>Our hobby is rooted in the very basics of communication between people and
>the pursuit of developing new techniques and improving the old ones. Don=B4=
>let us waste it away!
>73 de Mats SM7PKK
>I have not yet written to the FASC since I want to formulate a good writeup
>before I do.
>I sure hope though that there are many people within our hobby that share=
>values concerning the hobby otherwise I think we will move towards CB all
>over. I urge all of you to write your piece to the FASC.
>SM7PKK			E-mail: mats.persson at
>Mats Persson
>S-212 14 Malmoe
>Sweden			CW !!
>P.S My logs are open forever.. ever.. ever..
>        =20

>From ah3c at (PETER GRILLO)  Fri May 24 08:20:23 1996
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 01:20:23 -0600
Subject: Broad Band Monbander
Message-ID: <199605240126.TAA23567 at>

Just got a bunch of request for information on the Dayton Forum
presentation.  I don't want to steal thunder here because the details were
so well done that I would like to see a written article from the author.

Bottom line is, attach another director element a foot or so in front of
your driven element.  Its exitation will flatten the SWR.  Get dimensions
(vary with band) and construction details from the author (I think it was
WA3FET, but I may be wrong).

Pete, AH3C

>From kl7y at (Dan Robbins)  Fri May 24 02:43:31 1996
From: kl7y at (Dan Robbins) (Dan Robbins)
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 17:43:31 -0800
Subject: NCJ "Rules" article
Message-ID: <9605240143.AB02065 at>

I read KR2Q's dissertation and I agree with some things he said and disagree
with others.  One time we had some RF getting into the computers and some
calls got logged repeatedly or hosed up.  AFTER the contest, I removed the
bad calls.  Some of the ones I deleted were bogus anyway, but others were
actual call signs with a bunch of extra characters thrown in to make
nonsense.  Horrors, I even fixed a few!  The point is that the score I
claimed was actually less than the score I earned.  I purposely took a score
reduction to clean the junk out of the log, yet KR2Q thinks I did a NO-NO.
Am I now marked with a scarlet minus on my forehead?  Is reducing one's
score right up there with rubber clocking, ESP low band QSOs, and the
Callbook QSO generator?  

Doug does have some good points and I hope the article was to foster
discourse rather than decree.  I could discuss it more, a lot more, but I
have a contest to get ready for so let me just quote an old saw:

"One man's queen is another man's sweathog."

                                                        Dan KL7Y

>From n6ig at (Jim Pratt)  Fri May 24 02:55:01 1996
From: n6ig at (Jim Pratt) (Jim Pratt)
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 18:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Young Gun Contesters
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9605231826.A12543-0100000 at netcom15>

On Thu, 23 May 1996, AA3JU wrote:

> community.  It seems to be a pretty hot ticket.  First let me say that I am
> 37 years old.  Idon't think that is what you would call real real old.  I
> have held my license now for just about 3 years and I am a dedicated
> contester.  So here at least is one "young" guy that is in the ranks and I
> know that there are many others.  I personally doubt that many will enter
> the contest ranks much before the age of 30 - 35 there are considerations of
> family and economics on guys much younger than that.  Fact is it is easier

Interesting to put things into perspective.  I started contesting when I 
was 14;  I am 35 now.  I have lately had the feeling I was getting pretty 
old and "over the hill".  Thanks for your opinions!

73, Jim  N6IG

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list