More Gate2 Day1 Issu 11/07

W6TG at W6TG at
Fri Nov 8 10:40:42 EST 1996


>From km9p at (Bill Fisher KM9P)  Fri Nov  8 14:44:02 1996
From: km9p at (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>

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.


Bill, KM9P, K4AAA

>From aa7bg at (K7BG Matt Trott)  Fri Nov  8 15:31:36 1996
From: aa7bg at (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,


>From millersg at (Steve Miller)  Fri Nov  8 17:00:14 1996
From: millersg at (Steve Miller) (Steve Miller)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 12:00:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Random or ?
Message-ID: <m0vLuHv-0002AWC at>

> 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 

N8SM (not my first choice)

>From jon at (Jon)  Fri Nov  8 16:22:49 1996
From: jon at (Jon) (Jon)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 09:22:49 -0700
Subject: Worst FCC vanity error?
Message-ID: <199611081621.JAA22198 at>

AT6A is a callsign that is assigned to India

> From: Trey Garlough <trey at>
> To: Cleve D Leclair <dleclair at>
> 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 (Alan Rovner)  Fri Nov  8 17:07:00 1996
From: alanr at (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>

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?

Al Rovner, K7AR (ex WA2TMP)

>From aa4lr at (Bill Coleman AA4LR)  Fri Nov  8 15:19:15 1996
From: aa4lr at (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>

>From:        Fatchett, Mike, Fatchett.Mike at
>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
Quote: "Not in a thousand years will man ever fly!"
            -- Wilbur Wright, 1901

>From k6xx at (Bob Wolbert)  Fri Nov  8 17:50:47 1996
From: k6xx at (Bob Wolbert) (Bob Wolbert)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 09:50:47 PST
Subject: K1ZX?? No K4OJ
References: <961107221733_1748032020 at>
Message-ID: <19961108.101258.10559.1.k6xx at>

>Olde Jim
>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 (Frank Donovan)  Fri Nov  8 16:42:20 1996
From: donovanf at (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>

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!)

donovanf at

On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Richard Hallman wrote:

> >  From: dave at (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
> 11870 Heartpine St                
> Reno NV        
> 702 677-1106			                  ex:  KI3V, N3AMK, WB3JOV
> *************************************************************************	

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list