More Gate2 Day1 Issu 11/07
W6TG at aol.com
W6TG at aol.com
Fri Nov 8 10:40:42 EST 1996
NEW - OLD
W7KW-WA2AGO
K1JN-KA1MH
K2DJQ-N2GYY
K3HN-WB2AMM
KK5GT-AC5BR
ND4Q-AC4VA
W1CLS-KD4AUU
W1FYB-N1MJC
WY4Y-AE4PC
W9OZ-K9HCX
W1CN-KD1EG
K6RE-ALPS AMATEUR RADIO CLUB,W6RM-KE6TXM
>From km9p at contesting.com (Bill Fisher KM9P) Fri Nov 8 14:44:02 1996
From: km9p at contesting.com (Bill Fisher KM9P) (Bill Fisher KM9P)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 09:44:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Stu Perry 160 Awards
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.961108093846.9271B-100000 at paris.akorn.net>
I've posted the final awards list for the Stu Perry Distance Challenge on
WWW.CONTESTING.COM. I will be posting the rules for the contest (which
appeared in the new NCJ) tonight on the web.
I would appreciate any club newsletter types to reprint the rules and
awards in their newsletters for December. Hope I'm not too late.
K8CC & N6TR have promised versions that support the contest by December 1.
CT users can do the contest in the VHF contest mode. We will compute the
scores for CT users and post high claims on the reflectors and on the WWW.
I will post more updates here as they become available.
Thanks
Bill, KM9P, K4AAA
>From aa7bg at 3rivers.net (K7BG Matt Trott) Fri Nov 8 15:31:36 1996
From: aa7bg at 3rivers.net (K7BG Matt Trott) (K7BG Matt Trott)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 08:31:36 -0700
Subject: November CQ/10 Meter Contest Canceled?
Message-ID: <199611081531.IAA09587 at sun>
>Most of us wrote off the poor condx in the ARRL 10 meter test
>of December 1995, as being the low point of the last 10 years.
>And we hoped that the 10 meter test in December 1996 would
>show an improvement when/if Cycle 23 got underway.
>
>But our F2 conditions here in ZL are not as good as we had
>a year ago.
I think the 10m contest can be as much fun at the bottom of the cycle as at
the top. Sure if you need 300/hr runs to get your contesting fix you'll be
dissapointed, but when that 8 minute opening to East Hemstitch happens and
you're there it's a lot of fun. You're competition might have gone to the
cat-box during that 8 minutes and now your a couple Q's and mults ahead of
him. I get such a kick out of all the propagation modes that are so visible
during this test. I spent 30 some hours making 172 Q's last year and had a
great time. (Nice rate!). Left the recvr turned up, played with the kids,
and if a signal popped through I ran for the shack. You NEVER know what's
gonna happen in this one.
seekooo dias metros,
Matt--K7BG
>From millersg at dmapub.dma.org (Steve Miller) Fri Nov 8 17:00:14 1996
From: millersg at dmapub.dma.org (Steve Miller) (Steve Miller)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 12:00:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Random or ?
Message-ID: <m0vLuHv-0002AWC at dmapub.dma.org>
> Someone get this guy a good shrink quick!!
> It appears that he has either read too many conspiracy novels or suffers
> from the delusion that the government is out to get him.
>
> DE KC4TBH
I agree that he is taking the vanity callsigns more seriously than he
should, however the facts of his criticisms are valid.
FCC computers mysteriously go offline with some sort of problem just before
issuing the first Gate 2 vanity callsigns.
Circumstantial evidence seems to support his claim that electronic
submissions were processed first and that applications were not processed
in random order like the FCC stated.
I cannot say whether others knew of the actual processing sequence
beforehand, however one lucky trustee who submitted electronically
received 14 vanity club calls - including some very 'desirable' calls.
There have been callsign improprieties in the past. It would not surprise
me if there some cheating occured in gate 2 - it only takes one
programmer....
Steve
N8SM (not my first choice)
>From jon at vii.com (Jon) Fri Nov 8 16:22:49 1996
From: jon at vii.com (Jon) (Jon)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 09:22:49 -0700
Subject: Worst FCC vanity error?
Message-ID: <199611081621.JAA22198 at lonepeak.vii.com>
AT6A is a callsign that is assigned to India
----------
> From: Trey Garlough <trey at cisco.com>
> To: Cleve D Leclair <dleclair at efn.org>
> Cc: CQ-CONTEST at TGV.COM
> Subject: Re: Worst FCC vanity error?
> Date: Thursday, November 07, 1996 11:38 PM
>
> > Speaking of errorrrrrrs....... I thought you were only eligiable for
> > call signs within your own call area ... 3 got va call with a 3 in it
> > 6 wud get a 6....however several 6's, 0's, 3s, and others got 7 land
> > calls.....
>
> The rule (paraphrased) is that you are allowed to get a callsign from
> the area in which you reside, or one from mainland USA. For purposes
> of this exercise, all of the 48 states count as a single call area.
>
> In other words, if you live in California, then you are entitled to a
> call from W0-W9. If you live in Pago Pago, you are allowed to elect a
> AH8/KH8/NH8/WH8 call,or one from W0-W9. If you live in Charlotte
> Amalie, you may elect a KP2/NP2/WP2 call or one from W0-W9. If you
> live in Madras, you are allowed to pick a call like AT6A, or one from
> W0-W9.
>
> Clear now? :-)
>
> --Trey, N5KO/6
>From alanr at vcd.hp.com (Alan Rovner) Fri Nov 8 17:07:00 1996
From: alanr at vcd.hp.com (Alan Rovner) (Alan Rovner)
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 96 09:07:00 -0800
Subject: SV5 Activity During CQ CW Test.
Message-ID: <199611081707.AA181442820 at hpvcpar.vcd.hp.com>
Hello, I'll be active as SV5/K7AR from November 21-26 including the CQ CW
Test. Not sure which category yet. I'm leaning toward single band 20m,
but depends on what propagtion is like. Please QSL via AA6BB.
On an unrelated note, has anyone explored the DXpedition mode in CT? What
exactly does it get you, other than access to the WARC bands?
73,
Al Rovner, K7AR (ex WA2TMP)
>From aa4lr at radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR) Fri Nov 8 15:19:15 1996
From: aa4lr at radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR) (Bill Coleman AA4LR)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 96 11:19:15 -0400
Subject: To dupe or not to dupe..
Message-ID: <961008111713.LAA17110 at gate.iterated.com>
>From: Fatchett, Mike, Fatchett.Mike at tci.com
>
>Upon further thought. What is the purpose behind the dupesheet during
>the contest? I use it as a tool when hunting and pouncing so I don't
>waste my time in pileups for stations I have already worked. The
>computer programs now mark the dupes for you. Chances of having dupes
>using computers has to be close to nil.
I think the problem is more complicated than that. Let's take a generous
situation, where a station is running at a fair clip, and signing his
call after every contact. Me, I'm tuning along, and I hear:
Station: "... Mike Zulu, QRZed"
What do I do? I have two options. a) I can wait for him to work someone,
or call CQ or QRZ again, b) I can call him anyway. Option a) takes time,
and time is precious in a contest. Option b) seems like the best course
of action. However, sometimes this happens:
Me: "Alpha Alpha Four Lima Radio"
Station: "AA4LR we worked before"
Me: "What's your call?"
Station: "Kilo Nine Mike Zulu"
Me (frantically keying it in to check my computer): "Oh, uh, sorry. AA4LR"
Station: "CQ Contest Kilo Nine Mike Zulu"
Or, it could work this way:
Me: "Alpha Alpha Four Lima Radio"
Station: "AA4LR Number 203 K9MZ Mike Georgia"
Me (frantically keying it in my computer): "Oh, we QSO before, Mike"
Station: "Then don't call me, Bill! -- CQ Contest Kilo Nine Mike Zulu"
Or, this way:
Me: "Alpha Alpha Four Lima Radio"
Station: "AA4LR Number 203 K9MZ Mike Georgia" (Thinking, Drat! a dupe!)
Me: "K9MZ Number 17 AA4LR Bill Georgia" (Thinking, Drat! a dupe!)
Station: "So, Bill, are all the other 16 QSOs dupes, too? -- CQ Contest
Kilo Nine Mike Zulu"
Clearly, the last scenario is the most efficient, where each quietly
works the other and marks it as a dupe. The second scenario is almost as
efficient, especially when the S & P station mike be weak or have trouble
communicating all the info.
So, here we both are doing computer logging, yet we log a dupe. In these
days of two-radio operation, where the contester's attention is somewhat
divided, the probability for this scenario is quite high.
I quite often find this situation when someone is caught in a fast run
and isn't signing between Qs. It does seem to indicate that a running
station should worry about calling out dupes, unless perhaps for SS where
the exchange is really long.
Bill Coleman, AA4LR Mail: aa4lr at radio.org
Quote: "Not in a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>From k6xx at juno.com (Bob Wolbert) Fri Nov 8 17:50:47 1996
From: k6xx at juno.com (Bob Wolbert) (Bob Wolbert)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 09:50:47 PST
Subject: K1ZX?? No K4OJ
References: <961107221733_1748032020 at emout02.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19961108.101258.10559.1.k6xx at juno.com>
>
>Olde Jim
>
>K4OJ
>Known For Orange Juice
>The Florida Contest Group
>
I suppose "Olde Jim" figures "OJ" will slash through the pileups?
73 de Bob, K6XX
>From donovanf at sgate.com (Frank Donovan) Fri Nov 8 16:42:20 1996
From: donovanf at sgate.com (Frank Donovan) (Frank Donovan)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 11:42:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Which Caller to Reply to? Was: All the new-fnagled contest..
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.961108110936.12923A-100000 at jekyll.sgate.com>
The decision the contester must make very quickly when deciding which
caller to reply to in a pileup (this applies somewhat more to CW than
SSB because of longer decision time on CW), is how to maximize scoring
opportunity (with this QSO and future QSOs).
Some factors in the rapid decision making process:
Could the caller be a new multiplier or a higher point value QSO?
If yes... answer him first!
If the caller is not a multiplier or higher point value QSO:
Is the caller likely to wait thru the current QSO? (based on callsign
recognition or the "savvy" prodedure of the caller) If you don't think
the caller will wait, answer him first so he doesn't go away!
Is the caller so "savvy" that you think you can complete the QSO so
quickly that other callers will wait by default (or may still be calling!)?
If yes, reply to the very "savvy" caller!
If more than one station answers, do not reply immediately to the station
that may require longer time to complete the QSO due to such factors as:
weak signal, QRM or poor operating procedure.
Try not to let any caller wait too long or they may also go away!
Many callers will wait in a pileup for a few QSOs but not for more than a
few. Ideally, the pileup should be managed first-in-first-out, subject
to the considerations above.
If you can copy the callsigns (or partial callsigns) of other callers, you
can reply to them next to avoid digging thru the pileup for the next QSO.
Now... you get to run through this decision tree in about a second, and
even the best operators will make the optimum decision only some of the
time (oh... and of course this decision proces cannot interfere copying
the call perfectly the first time!)
73
Frank
W3LPL
donovanf at sgate.com
On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Richard Hallman wrote:
> > From: dave at egh.com (David Clemons), on 11/7/96 7:11 PM:
> > Hi,
> >
> > How do you pick which call to answer when two or three people
> > answer your cq? If I guess correctly, it is partially determined by your
> > ability to recognize one or more of those calls as belonging to an
> > experienced contester. Do you answer the one who is likely to be a
> > newcomer first, and hope that the experienced contester will wait around
> > for awhile? Or do you answer the contester whose call you recognize and
>
> Real easy.....Answer the LOUDEST one and continue on.....
>
> Rich N7TR NOT Portable seven!!
>
> *************************************************************************
> Richard Hallman N7TR n7tr at rnodx.org
> 11870 Heartpine St
> Reno NV
> 702 677-1106 ex: KI3V, N3AMK, WB3JOV
> *************************************************************************
>
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list