Special prefixes on CW
w9sz at prairienet.org
Wed May 29 19:13:18 EDT 1996
>.... SNIP .....
> > One thing I don't understand...why are so many contestants
> > still sending by hand?
>Could it be because they enjoy it and prefer it that way? At least
>that's why I do. (Seems rather obvious.)
> - Brent KO4PY
Me too! Contesting gets to be pretty impersonal. I like to send with a
keyer, but I also like to send the occasional "GM" or "GE" and "73" or
"CU". Lets the other guy know there's someone behind the machine!
73, Zack W9SZ
>From jdowning at intelenet.net (John Downing) Thu May 30 00:13:31 1996
From: jdowning at intelenet.net (John Downing) (John Downing)
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 16:13:31 -0700
Subject: Contesters SK - my rant!
Message-ID: <01BB4D79.C8257460 at downing-1.intelenet.net>
Are contesters a dying breed? Or, perhaps, the better question why =
isn't our hobby of amateur radio growing
and vibrant? I've given quite a bit of thought to both of these =
questions. A second and closely connected issue
at the heart of our hobby is how can we continue to enjoy the free use =
of our slice of the radio spectrum in an
age when spectrum auctions continue to produce remarkably high bids to a =
cash strapped federal government.
These thoughts have been rattling around in my head for some time, so =
with the reader's indulgence, I've put the
metaphoric pen to paper.=20
ON THE AVERAGE AGE OF THE AVERAGE CONTESTER
I've started a little project to really look at the age spread of the US =
hams who are active contest participants. I
am extracting the following data on US hams in the V31DX log (some =
40,000 Qs and perhaps 8,000 different=20
calls) from the last six ARRL SSB DX contests. The extracted data will =
include, by band, date of birth and=20
licence type. In addition, I'm sorting the CT Master.dta super check =
partial data base to see the spread of birth=20
years and license types (US only). And I will compare this to a similar =
spread of all currently licensed US hams.
Lastly, I'm taking the posted data from the last six ARRL VHF contests =
to sort along similar lines. This data
will be available to all who request it. I suspect that the data will =
show an average age in the mid fifties (similar
to the QST demographic data available to advertisers) trending older. =
And the VHF segment will may show a
lower average age than the HF segment.=20
Other baby boomer driven recreational organizations have faced similar =
demographic aging problems. I happen
to do some board level consulting with two of them; the US Cycling =
Federation (national governing body for
bicycle racing) and the Sports Car Club of America. The USCF became =
dominated by the older masters racing
oriented members who wanted pay lip service to junior's programs but =
never spend a cent of their dues on=20
recruiting younger members. The group was in a slow death spiral =
hanging on to an imagined past while trying=20
to ignore the realities of the present (which was that mountain biking =
had become 90% of the bicycle market).
NORBA, the mountain bike racing sanctioning group, was growing by leaps =
and bounds and with an average
member age at half (yes, half) the average USCF member age. In a bold =
move which absolutely infuriated the
USCF traditionalists the USCF bought NORBA. All of the growth in the =
USCF since the purchase has been in=20
the NORBA segment. The USCF is a changed and revitalized organization. =
The SCCA faces similar problems
and demographics (resulting in the joke about vintage racing - which is =
vintage, the drivers or the cars?). The=20
participant cost escalation and workplace availability (people have =
carports, not garages) excluded new entrants=20
who moved in droves to race go-karts; a lower cost, lower maintenance, =
less space intensive segment of the=20
sport. In fact, Humpy Wheeler, owner of Charlotte Motor Speedway forsaw =
exactly this phenomenon and=20
launched the tremendously successful Legends Cars racing series based on =
motorcycle engined, low cost,=20
purpose built tube frame chassis. The SCCA is moving quickly to =
incorporate kart racing into its program=20
(amid the primal screams of horror of the older traditionalists). If =
they can keep the program moving they will
achieve the same success as the USCF. =20
So what does this have to do with ham radio? Simply put, we as a group =
face the same problem of dwindling=20
interest, aging membership, and a strong desire to want things as they =
used to be (but never were!). Bold=20
moves, which will absolutely infuriate some of us are required or our =
hobby will slide into irrelevence. And we=20
will start to loose spectrum allocation fights accelerating the decline.
In keeping with the concept that radio amateur activity should be =
proactive for the future and contribute to the=20
state of the art I have several suggestions: Get off the idea that =
because I had to become proficient at CW=20
everyone else must also: CW is simply not relevent to modern =
communications (even the Coast Guard stopped
using it). Don't get me wrong - it's a fun mode that I happen to enjoy. =
These license requirement changes will=20
bring in new blood to our HF band segments and perhaps preserve or =
enlarge these segments. Make no mistake=20
about it; there is strength in numbers.
a) Lower the code test requirement for general class licenses to 5 wpm =
(or eliminate it entirely). =20
b) Increase the knowlege requirement for digital modes. =20
c) Reduce CW only spectrum allocation dramatically while reserving space =
for digital only modes and substantially increasing the SSB band plan in =
our HF bands.
And finally my contest (thought I'd never get around to contests did =
a) Eliminate the signal strength - 59(9) - component of the exchange in =
the two big contests, the ARRL DX and=20
the CQWW DX contests, and replace it with the year first licenced. In =
the case of multi operator entrants the
year first licensed would be the average of the group (perhaps weighted =
by points or Qs). A multiplier for each=20
end of the contest contact of 2.0 (arbitrary and capricious number) =
would apply to all those contacts made with=20
or by stations with a year first licensed within five calendar years =
(again, an arbitrary and capricious number) of=20
the contest. This simple mechanism would put a real incentive to =
encourage established multi operator stations
to recruit newly licensed hams to participate in contests and would give =
a real incentive to serious contest=20
stations to work the slower, less confident operators who may just be =
trying this contest business out for the=20
first time. These newer ops with typically smaller stations would get a =
real shot a breaking DX pileups because=20
of their multiplier value. They might even come back for more!
b) Establish a multi-op single band category for the CQWW and ARRL DX =
contests. Many, if not most=20
operators have CC&R imposed antenna restrictions, small lot sizes, TVI =
issues and the like which effectively=20
eliminate some or most HF bands from operation. As an long time =
operator at an established top multi-single=20
effort (V31DX) I find the multi-op camaraderie much of the fun of the =
contest weekend. A multi single band=20
category would provide a mechanism for encouraging the participation of =
new ops with those stations that have=20
restrictions - and, besides, it's more fun.
c) Absolutely encourage the use of computers, digital modes, and the =
Internet in contesting. In a era when the=20
net has become pervasive why not use it? The integration of computers =
and wireless communications is=20
happening in a very big way. Amateur radio, and contesting as the =
leading edge of ham radio, should be at the=20
forefront of this innovation. Younger would be hams would see some =
relevence to our activities if we get=20
ahead of the curve. Otherwise, they say, why bother? I can communicate =
on the net all over the world with no=20
problem. Note that cost is NOT an issue. The average new home computer =
costs more than the average ham=20
station. The budget is there. The question is one of relevence. So =
why not post logs in real time, why not=20
solicit Qs on the net, why not do post contest log corrections based on =
probabilities/past data for questionable=20
contact copy? Why not use real time computer aids to interpret =
questionable calls or anticipate calls? And so=20
d) To encourage participation in other, less used segments of our VHF =
spectrum, which we will absolutely=20
forfit if not actively used, create awards for overall contest national =
champions based on combined HF DX=20
contest, RTTY contest, and VHF contest scores for overall annual =
winners. HF only ops might find VHF=20
mighty interesting if given some incentive to explore this segment of =
the spectrum. They might find that the=20
VHF only crowd is that because they cannot erect HF antennas. They use =
the only outlet available to them. In=20
fact, they might be encouraged to participate in muli-op HF efforts =
because of the point value in VHF contests=20
and license age they bring to the table.
e) Restrictive CC&Rs prohibiting antennas are a fact of life for many. =
It seems to me that a return to eastern=20
European style club stations might be the order of the day for many =
domestic hams. The ARRL and CQ=20
magazine might consider encouraging this activity by featuring some =
success stories. The rush of newly issued=20
club callsigns may be a precursor of this activity.
So there you have it. Some ideas to stimulate thought and, I hope, =
action. The decline is as real as the sunspot=20
cycle. Without new blood we won't survive in a meaningful way. We can =
do nothing and hope that the upswing=20
in the solar flux will solve all problems or we can get to work and get =
ahead of the curve. Please, no responses
along the lines of I overcame this or that so everyone else should too. =
This is an inclusive activity, not an
exclusive one. Your ideas?
John Downing N6YRU / V31DX
jdowning at intelenet.net
- Pogo was right.-
>From nt5c at easy.com (John Warren) Thu May 30 00:22:51 1996
From: nt5c at easy.com (John Warren) (John Warren)
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 18:22:51 -0500
Subject: "The Sky is Falling!...."
Message-ID: <1378728364-159879302 at BANJO.EASY.COM>
"The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!...." (remember that?)
I am truly amazed at the outpouring of doom and gloom on this Reflector
over the past week or so, triggered by the possibility that mandatory code
testing might one day be eliminated. Behind this sense of imminent
catastrophe seems to be a fear that the walls will be broken down by hordes
of mindless, no-code barbarians, and that all will be lost for our
wonderful hobby. In case you hadn't noticed, amateur radio HAS changed
occasionally in the past eighty years.
I'm beginning to think that I must live in a most unusual part of the
United States. Our local Amateur Radio Club is flourishing. Because of
"Standing Room Only" problems, we had to change meeting rooms two years
ago. Now the new one is full, and we'll soon have to move again. About 35%
of those members were welcomed in (note choice of words) as No-Code Techs.
Many of them are younger folks, and YLs/XYLs. Much to my amazement, they
seem quite civilized - They can construct complete sentences in English,
eat with knives and forks, and in general they fit in extremely well with
the more sophisticated types who have passed code tests. Even more
remarkably, they are upgrading at a great clip - right through to Extra
Class in several cases. I wasn't led to expect that!
Regardless of whether you favor or oppose the elimination of code testing,
I suggest that there are MUCH more serious threats to our hobby. Number one
in my mind is the steady decline in enforcement of ANY rules by our own
FCC, and the even worse situation overseas, especially in rapidly
developing countries. That, and never-ending attempts to steal our
spectrum, are what ARRL and IARU should be concentrating on. Code testing
is WAY down on the list.
>From jreid at aloha.net (Jim Reid) Thu May 30 00:18:00 1996
From: jreid at aloha.net (Jim Reid) (Jim Reid)
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 13:18:00 -1000
Subject: TO ARRL WRC-99 Planning Committee
Message-ID: <18.104.22.168.19960529231800.006955ac at aloha.net>
Issues have been raised regarding the examinations given
for evaluations of applicants for operating licenses carrying
HF Amateur Band privileges. My response is based upon the
present ITU treaty Para S25.6(2) and the treaty definition of
the Amateur Service, Para S56. I support the FASC discussion
paper position that these paragraphs NOT be changed. Further,
as will be developed below, some parts of the US Part 97 --
The Amateur Radio Service ought to be brought into closer
alignment with the existing ITU treaty requirements and
definition of the Amateur Service.
One of many similar questions I have recently received:
Todd Little, N9MWB, wrote:
> I belive this begs the question "What is the purpose of licensing
> exams in amateur radio?"
The simple answer to this question is easy: to quote from the current
ITU treaty, signed already by some 150 nations and containing section
S25, The Amateur Service,
"S25.6(2) Administrations shall take measures as they judge necessary to
verify the operational and technical qualifications of any person wishing
to operate the apparatus of an amateur station."
This is NOT a quote, note, from the US Telecommunications Act, nor from any
US FCC Rules and Regulation document; it is from a treaty signed by the
United States Government, and re-annunciated at WRC-95 per the IARU.
> The real heart of the problem is what is the purpose of the examinations.
The purpose of the examinations to "to verify" that persons wishing to operate
the apparatus of an amateur station is going to do so in accordance with the
Treaty (neither US, nor ARRL) definition of the "Amateur Radio Service":
ITU Treaty Para. "S.56 Amateur Service: A radiocommunication service for the
purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigation
out by amateurs, that is, by duly authorized persons interested in radio
technique solely without pecuniary interest."
Therefore, the purpose of examinations to become licensed "to operate the
apparatus of an amateur station" (given by nations which have signed the
ITU treaty) is to verify that that person has, in fact, and is capable of
"self-training, intercommunication" and carrying on "technical investigation"
of the "radio technique".
Therefore, the US government and other government administrations are treaty
bound to exam applicants for amateur radio licenses about the ability that can
be demonstrated to self-train themselves in aspects of radio technique, about
the ability which can be demonstrated to "intercommunicate" and about the
ability to carry on "technical investigations" regarding "radio technique
without regard" to being paid for it or otherwise gaining financially.
> In setting up international treaties, it would seem that the international
> regulations must set the minimal practicable requirements necessary
> to ensure safe and orderly operation of an amateur radio station.
That is only part, the above quotations from the treaty contain
tne rest of the reasons for examinations.
> So what exactly are the skills or knowledge *every* amateur needs to
> know in order to be granted an amateur licensing by their local
> administration? I belive this is the ultimate question the FASC is
> trying to answer.
The skills to be demonstrated are, "What have you done lately to self-train
yourself in "radio technique?", "What technical knowledge do you have which,
if licensed, would indicatie your ability to contruibute to technical
investigaions of radio technique?"; and, "What have you done lately to
assure us, the licensing authority, treaty bound, that you can
internationaly among the several nations of the world whose represenatatives
also signed the ITU treaty?"
These issuse, my fellow radio amateurs (defined as "lovers" of the art")
should be at
the very heart of why any of us worked so hard to earn our licenses. I am still
extremely proud of my ticket, earned over 46 years ago, and can still feel
of passing those awesome tests!
73 and, please, think about these issues and respond to the IARU FASC request
for comments, our future in amateur radio may depend upon it!
Todd Little has contributed his thoughts to my comments as follow:
>> I belive this begs the question "What is the purpose of licensing
>> exams in amateur radio?"
The line above is Todd's original question, to which I replied"
> The simple answer to this question is easy: to quote from the current
> ITU treaty, signed already by some 150 nations and containing section
> S25, The Amateur Service,
> "S25.6(2) Administrations shall take measures as they judge necessary to
> verify the operational and technical qualifications of any person wishing
> to operate the apparatus of an amateur station."
This only states that an adminstration shall take measures. Perhaps instead
of asking what is the purpose, I should ask what is the goal. More on that
> The purpose of the examinations to "to verify" that persons wishing to operate
> the apparatus of an amateur station is going to do so in accordance with the
> Treaty (neither US, nor ARRL) definition of the "Amateur Radio Service":
This makes sense.
> ITU Treaty Para. "S.56 Amateur Service: A radiocommunication service
> purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigation
> out by amateurs, that is, by duly authorized persons interested in radio
> technique solely without pecuniary interest."
Similar to our Part 97.1.
> Therefore, the purpose of examinations to become licensed "to operate the
> apparatus of an amateur station" (given by nations which have signed the
> ITU treaty) is to verify that that person has, in fact, and is capable of
> "self-training, intercommunication" and carrying on "technical investigation"
> of the "radio technique".
Well this is where it becomes a little unclear to me. I believe paragraph
be read as to mean either one or more, or read as all, i.e., does someone need
to fulfill all three purposes or just one or more? It is somewhat
they use the terms "technical investigation" whereas part 97.1(b) uses the term
"advancement of the radio art". Part 97.1 is fairly ambiguous as to whether
all or some of Part 97 applies to all amateurs.
> Therefore, the US government and other government administrations are treaty
> bound to exam applicants for amateur radio licenses about the ability that can
> be demonstrated to self-train themselves in aspects of radio technique, about
> the ability which can be demonstrated to "intercommunicate" and about the
> ability to carry on "technical investigations" regarding "radio technique
> without regard" to being paid for it or otherwise gaining financially.
Is it "and" for certain? If so, then the principles of the U.S. amateur
radio service should be amended to reflect that.
>> So what exactly are the skills or knowledge *every* amateur needs to
>> know in order to be granted an amateur licensing by their local
>> administration? I belive this is the ultimate question the FASC is
>> trying to answer.
> The skills to be demonstrated are, "What have you done lately to self-train
> yourself in "radio technique?", "What technical knowledge do you have which,
> if licensed, would indicatie your ability to contruibute to technical
> investigaions of radio technique?"; and, "What have you done lately to
> assure us, the licensing authority, treaty bound, that you can
> internationaly among the several nations of the world whose
> also signed the ITU treaty?"
That doesn't seem particularly well aligned with Part 97.1.
> These issuse, my fellow radio amateurs (defined as "lovers" of the art")
should be at
> the very heart of why any of us worked so hard to earn our licenses. I am
> extremely proud of my ticket, earned over 46 years ago, and can still
feel the >joy of passing those awesome tests!
While I'm not particularly proud of my license or my accomplishments,
I still feel joy in operating and mentoring (elmering) others in the
various areas of expertise that I have. I also get a lot out of learning
from my radio elmers. At the moment I have what is almost an ideal
setup. I have someone as an elmer that is *extremely* radio knowledgable
and yet at the same time, is relatively naive with respect to computers (my
area of expertise.) So we can spend a great deal of time exchanging
knowledge to both of our benefits.
I find it interesting that the above [ITU treaty paragraphs] seem to be
the cornerstone of amateur radio, yet are not expressed in any US amateur
radio regulations that I know of.
>From TREY at TGV.COM (Trey Garlough) Thu May 30 01:02:40 1996
From: TREY at TGV.COM (Trey Garlough) (Trey Garlough)
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 17:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: TO ARRL WRC-99 Planning Committee
Message-ID: <833414560.550095.TREY at tgv.com>
> Issues have been raised regarding the examinations given
> for evaluations of applicants for operating licenses carrying
> HF Amateur Band privileges.
I realize this is an important topic, but a little far afield of
contesting. May I suggest we move this thread to a broader discussion
group, like rec.radio.amateur.misc? The fact these messages are
cross-posted to various recipients (Contest forum, DX forum, ARRL
staff, etc) underscores this fact. Thanks.
>From kf3p at cais.cais.com (Tyler Stewart) Thu May 30 08:25:11 1996
From: kf3p at cais.cais.com (Tyler Stewart) (Tyler Stewart)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 00:25:11 -0700
Subject: KF3P WPX CW SOHP Score
Message-ID: <31AD4D57.696C at cais.com>
Frank, I didnt mean it! Please let me come home!!!
1996 CQ WPX CONTEST
Call used: KF3P Location:
Category: Single Op All Band Mode: CW Power: 1500
Callsign of Operator: KF3P
Hours of Operation: 34:53
band QSOs points
160 0 0
80 67 282
40 547 2288
20 1319 3159
15 56 114
10 0 0
TOTAL 1989 5843 X 703 multipliers = 4,107,629
Club or Team Name: Potomac Valley Radio Club
Station: 1 FT1000MP and 1 FT1000D - 2 Alpha 87's
386 and 486 computers running NA10 software networked
80M inv. V at 100'
40M 402CD at 125'
20/15/10M 3 stacked KT34XA's at 10/20/30 meters
Well, I had to see what it would be like without LPL hardware...now I know!
Although I really wasnt prepared (lack of sleep, planning, etc.) going into
this one, it's obvious that there must be something advantageous to 7...errr
make that 9 towers in your "backyard". Well, hope I can make it to 2 this
We are heavy into summertime propagation. Worked more JA's beaming EU than
direct! Not much rare DX, but lots of good hauls! 20 was a lot of fun...
Got into a lot more freq brawls this time...I'm sure due to a tinier signal
and my "LPL" attitude which I had to adjust slightly... It was interesting to
play with the stacked tribanders in different combinations. Although the
stack together was usually best, there were a couple of short time periods
where running the low pair was better than all three or the esp. the top
beam by itself to EU. Neat stuff! Definitely need more help on 40 and 80
here, but the sandman was my larger enemy this weekend.
As usual, tons of zero pointers in the log searching for prefixes on
multiple bands! Anyone want to sign a petition to eliminate the multi-band
WPX award? Oh well, you live by the prefix, and ....
I really feel sorry for KM900P...boy that's a LLLOOOONNNGGGG call!
and those guys signing calls like OEM9XYZ...wow! You should get a bonus mult
for how many letters are in your callsign! hi hi
I decided to run NA software as a prelim to the June VHF contest, as it has
some big advantages over CT for VHFers. Unfortunately I had problems.
Running "check partial" on a 486DX66 machine was a nuisance...on my 386DX33
it was unusable - I turned it off. Both machines were suffering from
"dead keyboard syndrome". At first I though I had a bad keyboard on the 386,
but I swapped it out and got the same results. Unless you hammered on the
keys or pressed very deliberately, you lost keystrokes. Obviously something
was interfering with the normal interupt handling.
Congrats to KE2PF for a phenomenal record-breaker from N2RM! Awesome!
Also congrats to PVRCers K3ZO and KT3Y, who put in their usual smokin'
efforts and to the crew at NJ4F for a nice MS score.
OK, enough stuff... see all you PVRCers in the on-the-air reunion next
weekend and June VHF contest from K3MQH the following weekend. We will be on
up thru 1296Mhz this time for sure, with a slight possibility for 2304.
73, Tyler KF3P
>From jhurt at freenet.columbus.oh.us (James Hurt) Thu May 30 01:19:42 1996
From: jhurt at freenet.columbus.oh.us (James Hurt) (James Hurt)
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 20:19:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Information/Manual Needed
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9605292042.A13962-a100000 at acme>
I recently acquired a Surplus U.S. Navy Antenna tuner, and need a
manual, a copy of a manual, or a source to get a manual.
It is cylindrical, about 4 feet long, and about a foot in diameter.
It is marked TN342/WRT2. I was told it was used on aircraft carriers.
I am missing whatever kind of control box was used with it. It has a
HUGE roller inductor, a stepped switch for fixed capacitors, and it
even has internal fans to cool the inductor. The entire thing is built
to be pressurized, and is quite heavy. While I certainly don't require
all the bells and whistles, it is an interesting piece of engineering.
I am hoping to use this on my 90' vertical, during contests. I think
it will be just the thing to QSY from one end of 160 to the other
during busy 160 contests.
If anyone can offer any help or suggestions, it would be appreciated.
>From 0006008716 at mcimail.com (Doug Grant) Thu May 30 01:42:00 1996
From: 0006008716 at mcimail.com (Doug Grant) (Doug Grant)
Date: Wed, 29 May 96 19:42 EST
Subject: "HAM" Prefix
Message-ID: <15960530004251/0006008716DC6EM at MCIMAIL.COM>
My favorite one this year has been HAM6IAM.
IF you have little kids (or recently little kids), and have read any of the
Dr. Seuss books, you know why that callsing makes me grin.
IS his name Sam?
Does he eat Spam?
Or maybe jam?
He'll just answer "Ham (6) I am".
And he probably doesn't know why we're all grinning...
>From 0006008716 at mcimail.com (Doug Grant) Thu May 30 02:02:00 1996
From: 0006008716 at mcimail.com (Doug Grant) (Doug Grant)
Date: Wed, 29 May 96 20:02 EST
Subject: Grab for 2M/70cm
Message-ID: <82960530010228/0006008716DC6EM at MCIMAIL.COM>
Let 'em have it.
My cell phone bill will go down due to more competition (my 2M mobile has long
since been replaced by the phone anyway).
We can move all the clusters to 222 MHz or some other band. Or via little-LEO
link via Internet.
All those no-coders will go somewhere else and we can stop whining about them
dumbing-down ham radio because they'll be outta here.
Maybe we can demand that the incumbent users of those bands be compensated for
the expense of relocating us all to HF with brand new 1000MPs or whatever,
paid for by the little-LEO crowd. They've got plenty of bread.
So I say good riddance. THey can have 2 and 70.
Just stay the hell away from 15...
p.s. For the humor-impaired, that was attempted humor. Except the part about 15M.
>From n1mm at usa.pipeline.com (Tom Wagner) Thu May 30 02:04:08 1996
From: n1mm at usa.pipeline.com (Tom Wagner) (Tom Wagner)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 01:04:08 GMT
Subject: TS850S and CW filters
Message-ID: <199605300104.BAA21270 at pipe3.t1.usa.pipeline.com>
I have an '850 with the IRCI filters. They are like walls. I never have a
problem finding a clear frequency. I have used the Kenwood in my TS-930
and I think the IRCI's are better, but I have not checked them
I also have the 1.8 KHz IRCI SSB filter, but I don't like it. The tuning is
too critical. I am looking to buy a pair of 2.1's for the 850.
P.S. At the risk of being obvious, have you tried using the slope
tuning to narrow the bandwidth with your 500 Hz filters?
>From k3sa at access.digex.net (Steven Affens) Thu May 30 04:08:44 1996
From: k3sa at access.digex.net (Steven Affens) (Steven Affens)
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 23:08:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Dayton PileUp Scores???
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960529230734.23051A-100000 at access2.digex.net>
Anyone have the results of the CW test Saturday Night at Dayton?
Steven C. Affens
k3sa at access.digex.net
>From ey8mm at sovam.com (Nodir M. Tursoon-Zadeh) Thu May 30 08:59:35 1996
From: ey8mm at sovam.com (Nodir M. Tursoon-Zadeh) (Nodir M. Tursoon-Zadeh)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 07:59:35 MMTDST
Message-ID: <199605300359.AA07122 at scylla.sovam.com>
Hi to all,
Can anybody send me contest calendar for rest of this year?
Thanks in advance.
Nodir M. Tursoon-Zadeh EY8MM * tel:+7(3772) 214-706
Member of EY2Q contest team * 212-844
ex. UJ8JMM, YA1MM, YA5MM, DL/EY8MM, * fax:+7(3772) 212-847
RJ0J, RJ1J, RJ2S, RJ4X, RJ5R, RJ6K, *
RJ8WCY, EU9J, EK8R *
Mailing address: P.O.BOX 303, Dushanbe, 734001, Tajikistan
e-mail: <ey8mm at sovam.com>
<ey8mm at tarl.td.silk.glas.apc.org>
>From aa4nu at raider.raider.net (Bill W. Cox [AA4NU]) Thu May 30 05:44:18 1996
From: aa4nu at raider.raider.net (Bill W. Cox [AA4NU]) (Bill W. Cox [AA4NU])
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 23:44:18 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: TU to Dave Sumner K1ZZ !!
Message-ID: <m0uOzat-000CohC at raider.raider.net>
Trey, (and reflector group) I agree the issue has now been talked about,
it is now time for each to evaluate and choose to respond or not respond.
My last public comment for now on this subject material is to pause and
say a rather large *** THANK YOU *** to Mr. Dave Sumner, K1ZZ !
He has quickly responded to each and every message I have sent him in the
last few days on the "CW issue". And Dave has responded to my questions and
my own personal statements in a most professional manner.
Much better than the "form letter thank you" from the FASC group.
Thanks Dave ! While I don't agree with or understand all this, the important
information you provided has been very helpful to guide me along the process.
73 Bill AA4NU aa4nu at raider.raider.net
>From kj5yf at wt.net (Larry Johnson) Thu May 30 13:30:11 1996
From: kj5yf at wt.net (Larry Johnson) (Larry Johnson)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 05:30:11 -0700
Subject: Our Clique - SK?
Message-ID: <BMSMTP83345229912kj5yf at pop3.wt.net>
>> SO, what have we forgotten, what are we doing differently
>> that is scaring new guys away?
Maybe I missed some of the notes, but the responses seemed to focus on
attacting "new young blood". How about a different perspective for the contest
fraternity to consider in terms of "new guys" or "new blood".?
I definitely fall into the category of "young" contester...but "young" in the
sense I received my first license less than 3 years ago in Aug/93 with
subsequent upgrades to Extra in Aug/94 (and for those in that other discussion
thread...no I did not memorize the answers). However, at the age of 45, I
hardly qualify as "young" blood.
Since that time, I got bitten bad by the CW 'test bug. My first 'test was the
94 ARRL CW DX...made a resounding 5 QSO's in operating literally the whole
weekend...30 wpm was impossible considering I had just passed 13 wpm the month
before and the only DX I had worked up to that point was Cuba (heh). However,
perserverance pays off, and although just a peanut signal from smack in the
middle of downtown Houston (Translation: no room for towers here, lots of
noise, and not a big score), I was able to run with CT cranked up to 30 wpm in
this weekend's WPX, an impossible dream just a year ago.
And herein lies my point. I have the impression that the average "new ham" is
probably considerably older than perhaps the "new ham" of a decade ago. I know
I've certainly met and talked to several that did not get their license until
they were in their 30's or 40's, and like like me, have put together "modest"
stations. I suspect that you could select a number of criteria to attribute to
those in this group that are really interested in ham radio, e.g., more
discretionary income, willing to upgrade, interested in and attracted to
various aspects including contesting, and so on. At the same time, they're not
big guns, they're not experienced in the subleties of contesting, and they're
not likely to win any major 'tests anytime soon.
So perhaps there's an opportunity to focus here in ways that would also benefit
"young" blood. It's not clear to me the problem is totally the lack of young
blood per se.
The "new-guy" programs which you suggested (and articles) directed to
"strategies" and "how to's", relative to the smaller station would certainly be
a start. At the major hamfests/ARRL meetings I've been to (Dallas and Austin),
I've seen programs on DX'ing and expeditions but never on 'tests. The upcoming
Hamvention in Dallas next weekend has everything you wanted to know about
microwave, digital, and satellite, but nothing at all about contesting. And I
don't ever recall in the three years I've been a member of the ARRL, a feature
article in QST about contesting "how to" or strategy, especially for the
But...and please don't take offense at this statement...I don't want programs
on big gun 'testing. I have nothing against big guns, and am suitably
impresssed (and envious) by the pictures of antenna farms. The problem is...I'm
not a big gun...I'm a small gun that wants to learn how to better operate and
be more competitive with what I have.
Another thought is, contests that draw a lot of people in which small stations
can truly be competive. I don't feel that I can be competitive in the CQ WW, CQ
WPX, or ARRL DX. Just about the only test that I feel that I can truly be
competitive in at this point is CW SS. And there's only one of them. I do want
to give Sprints a shot, but let's face it, Sprints aren't for the beginners and
are a lot smaller compared to something like SS. I know putting on a 'test is
not a simple matter, but I've often wondered why, for example, CQ doesn't
sponsor an SS like 'test. Given the draw of SS (and Field Day and the HPM/125)
in terms of numbers of US/Canadian hams...there are people out there who I
think want to 'test. Perhaps there's potential for more localized tests such as
these in which a smaller station can be truly competitive.
Just my 2 cents (and 0 sense) worth....
* Larry Johnson
* KJ5YF @ WT.NET
* Houston, Texas U.S.A.
>From je1cka at dumpty.nal.go.jp (Takao KUMAGAI) Thu May 30 06:51:40 1996
From: je1cka at dumpty.nal.go.jp (Takao KUMAGAI) (Takao KUMAGAI)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 14:51:40 +0900
Subject: RUFZ finally SBlaster supported!
Message-ID: <199605300551.OAA19738 at dumpty.nal.go.jp>
This is the independent program but co-operate with RUFZ for
using Sound Blaster.
Program author is DL2OAP and it works real fine with my
Gateway 2K(486DX2/66+ SB16). So now you can hear the sound
through earphone/headphone with SB sound!!
It is now available through Tack's info-server.
Send an email to
info-contest at dumpty.nal.go.jp
with the following messages in the body
I believe it will be available also KA9FOX's web site.
I hope this will help your score a little bit.
Tack Kumagai JE1CKA/KH0AM
Internet: je1cka at nal.go.jp
>From kbaczko at hrz.uni-kassel.de (Knut Baczko) Thu May 30 07:34:24 1996
From: kbaczko at hrz.uni-kassel.de (Knut Baczko) (Knut Baczko)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 06:34:24 +0000
Subject: WPX-CW-CONTEST OEM2BZL
Message-ID: <31AD4170.77BB at hrz.uni-kassel.de>
first my raw score:
BAND QSO QSO PTS PTS/Q PREFIXES
160 0 0 0.0 0
80 184 392 2.1 79
40 354 1024 2.9 164
20 269 522 1.9 145
15 34 48 1.4 13
10 0 0 0.0 0
Totals 841 1986 2.4 401 = 796,386
This result was really disapointing for me. Before the contest I thought
I could easily get > 1000 QSOs, because people were calling my like
crazy to get the special OEM2 prefix the last time I was in Austria in
January. But operating in the contest was a pain! Even known top
contesters had problems copying my call and very often I had to repeat
it several times. I can understand this. Just try once to send this
call, hi.. One remark about sending with keyboards. During the test I
found out that people could easier copy my call and my QSO rate was
siginificantly rising, when I was not using the automatic functions and
leave for instance more space between words. But it is hard to send this
long call for hours by hand. Anyhow this was the last time I used such a
long and complicated call in a contest.
The other thing I don´t like in the newer rules is the 36 hours
operating time. It was much more fun and less stress, when the operating
time was 6 hours shorter. When you have a family and many of us have it
will tolerate contesting much more if you don´t sit a whole weekend on
the radio, but can spent some time with your family. This long operating
time is the main reason, that I don´t participate so often these days in
the WPX contest.
So see you again but only as OE2BZL in the WWDX CW Contest!
73 Knut DK5AD/OE2BZL
>From aa4nu at raider.raider.net (Bill W. Cox [AA4NU]) Thu May 30 08:02:37 1996
From: aa4nu at raider.raider.net (Bill W. Cox [AA4NU]) (Bill W. Cox [AA4NU])
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 02:02:37 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Idea to PROMOTE CONTESTING ?
Message-ID: <m0uP1km-000EvlC at raider.raider.net>
Mnn ... CONTESTING ! We need MORE BLOOD, regardless of "age in earth years".
How do we get the message out and encourage NEW folks to join the FUN ?
Here's a idea that crossed my tired mind, and I may try it this weekend
at the hamfest ... It can't hurt ...
1. Purchase the CQ CONTEST video (I use it to pass around and try to let
new hams see all the various options to 'contesting'> ...
2. Borrow one of those TV/VCR combo jobs, or while the xYL is not looking,
procure her's for an "important secret mission"
3. Reserve some space on the table at your hamfest table for the TV/VCR,
YES, it may cost you a few bucks for power ... but try it !
4. RUN THE VIDEO over and OVER again, set the volume where it's not loud,
but it holds their attention.
5. Have a 'sign this sheet for more information' on a clipboard next to the
TV/VCR/whatever. Get his/her name/callsign/address/phone number ...
6. Look the "prospect" directly in the eye and tell HOW MUCH YOU enjoy this
part of the hobby. (and hope they don't operate SSTV! :-)
7. Mention the next group/club meeting, and the next CONTEST ... Invite
them to be part of the next NAQP and make a team up.
8. After the hamfest, FOLLOW UP ! FOLLOW UP ! FOLLOW UP ! If you offered
more info, send it. If the group/club is meeting shortly, call them
and INVITE them again ...
9. Offer to do a "Intro To Contesting" at the next local (non-contest)
group/club. I made up a simple 2 page handout that gives a summary.
That plus a couple of 10x12 frames full of snapshots showing some of
the local contestors. Comments to the pictures are "Hey, I know him!"
Does he CONTEST, heck, he works in the same office as I do... etc"
10. Have copies of that material on hand to pass out, with YOUR name/info
on it so they have a contestor they now know and have spoke with.
I think the postings on this thread agree, we need to do abit more PR work.
Now, let's swap notes and ideas that WORK to accomplish the goals !
Did you see KC4ZV's idea in the NCJ that he wanted to try at a hamfest
while the NAQP was going on ? Have a LIVE station there and invite
them to listen in on a second set of headphones, and then swap with them
and let them do it after they seem comfortable with the exchange/etc ...
73 Bill AA4NU aa4nu at raider.raider.net
PS ... Here's a few things you probably should not ask, ...well maybe not ?
11. Say, you look young and those arms sure look STRONG. Ever been to the
top of a xxx' high tower ? Would you like to climb one TODAY ?
12. Do you have any ham relatives that live in the extremes of Canada, do
you ever visit them in the Fall ?
13. Do you still enjoy answering LOTs of QSLs .................
>From l38217 at alfa.ist.utl.pt (Pedro Pedroso) Thu May 30 11:10:20 1996
From: l38217 at alfa.ist.utl.pt (Pedro Pedroso) (Pedro Pedroso)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 10:10:20 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: WPX 36 vs 30 hours SOP
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.960530100459.10725A-100000 at alfa.ist.utl.pt>
On Wed, 29 May 1996, Bill Fisher KM9P wrote:
> Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 17:24:28 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Bill Fisher KM9P <km9p at contesting.com>
> To: Pedro Pedroso <l38217 at alfa.ist.utl.pt>
> Cc: Jan-Erik Holm 0920 239081 <JEH at on.mobitel.telia.se>,
> cq-contest at tgv.com
> Subject: Re: WPX 36 vs 30 hours SOP
> > Hello !!
> > I can't understand what's the problem ??
> > If CQWWDX is 48 hours, WPX with only 36, it's fairly easyer to
> > optimize operation and get some rest during the contest.
> > Personaly I even prefer 48 Hour operation, when you are forced
> > to stop because you have limited time operation, you break the
> > rythom and gets harder when you come back !
> > 73 + Good DX + Good Contest !!
> > | Pedro Pedroso | |
> > | l38217 at alfa.ist.utl.pt | CT1ELP |
> Typically a guy that enters the 48 hour
> category (seriously) will operate 42 - 45 hours. I think most of the
> guys that do this category will tell you that 3 hours of sleep will do
> you more good than actually missing the operating time.
> So... The difference between a 36 hour contest and a 42 hour contest
> really isn't that much. Here in the USA it also gives the guys in the NE
> their advantage back. When it was 30 hours, the guys in California could
> typically find 30 hours in which they could run guys. The guys in the NE
> would have to select 30 hours of the possible 40 they could run. Ya the
> guys in the NE still win, but the guy in California feels like he has a
> chance and thus gets on the air. The way it is now... well, when was
> the last time KKN did WPX SSB from QHS?
> Bill, KM9P
Ok, Bill ! I have to agree with that, since I don't live there
and never operated from the US, I could never see things from
that point of view !
Still, I prefer CQ WW DX as single op. But I do enjoy a lot doing
WPX as Multi op. (maybe because we don't have time limits !!)
| Pedro Pedroso | |
| l38217 at alfa.ist.utl.pt | CT1ELP |
| Eng. Electrotecnica e Computadores | Founder member of GPDX |
| (Telecomunicacoes e electronica) | |
| Address: P.O.Box 116 , 2806 Almada Codex , PORTUGAL |
More information about the CQ-Contest