jmellis at ihug.co.nz
Thu Nov 14 07:49:58 EST 1996
> On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 W8JITom at aol.com wrote:
> I have a question about sending CW in a contest.
> What is the preferred method of sending a serial number?
> Is a long "T" preferred for a zero, or an "O"?
> Thanks, TomW8JI at AOL.com
Good morning from New Zealand.
Here in ZL, the use of the long T died out some years ago when
operators started to use iambic paddles (bencher). The long T
can only be sent by a hand key or a bug key. Today I think
that it would just confuse people.
The leading 0's in a serial number can be suppressed.
For the CQ WPX contest:-
eg: 599 001 can be sent as 5nn 1
599 099 5nn 99
599 100 5nn 100
BTW, in our ZL field day contest, our exchange includes
our NZART Branch number, which in my case is 02.
We always send that as O2.
eg: ZL2TT ur 5nn 123/O2
To my way of thinking, the dadada can always be substituted for
a zero. After all, when you write it in the log the _Oh_ looks
like a zero anyway.
The other point, is the way that the contest software has been
programmed which the contest station is using.
I suppose that if you are sending with TR, CT or NA
that you send what the program generates.
Hope this is of some help.
< jmellis at ihug.co.nz >
>From k7fr at ncw.net (Gary Nieborsky) Wed Nov 13 21:11:03 1996
From: k7fr at ncw.net (Gary Nieborsky) (Gary Nieborsky)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:11:03 -0800
Subject: TopBand: POWER LINE NOISE
Message-ID: <199611132111.NAA29205 at bing.ncw.net>
Sure he does! The AM radio in his van will do a really good job tracking
down BC freq interference. At this frequency you can drive along the line
and listen for peaks in the noise. Tune up around 1640 kc (or the first
open freq near there) and drive along the line. At each pole you will
notice a slight increase in static. At the really bad poles you will hear a
very large increase. The gear he has is more suited to pin-pointing bad
insulators than gross noise sources.
You can use your ham rig too if it will run on 12vdc. Make a small loop and
go looking for the noise. Remember that the loop is directional broadside.
Rotate the loop to null and go in the direction 90 degrees to the null.
Our RFI guy just got done with a BC-DXer problem over at the neighboring
REA. Turned out to be a disimilar metal problem between the REA's down guy
and the pone company's aluminum ground wire at a line amp. He used his AM
radio to track it down after the RF sniffer toy failed.
PS copied to the reflector for general info.
At 01:36 PM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Anyone on here ever experience much or any power line noise on 160?
>I've contact our utility company and the guy says he doesn't have any
>antenna to listen that low in frequency. He's always been very
>cooperative though in helping find the source. Just was wondering if
>any has ever experience any pl noise?
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
>Submissions: topband at contesting.com
>Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST at contesting.com
>Sponsored by Akorn Access, Inc & KM9P
>From jbearss at NIIA.Net (Jim Bearss) Wed Nov 13 21:24:24 1996
From: jbearss at NIIA.Net (Jim Bearss) (Jim Bearss)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 15:24:24 -0600
Subject: Vanity Update
Message-ID: <01BBD176.C24A0E80 at pm3-16.niia.net>
Just talked to "Jody" at the FCC. She said all 2nd day and later =
applications for vanity calls are "on indefinite hold" until all the =
petitions that were filed relating to day 1 applications were settled. =
Additionally, she said all day 1 applications for club calls that were =
filed by a trustee who also received a vanity call were also on hold, =
but would be processed before any day 2 applications were processed. =
She also said that petitions were filed relating to lawsuits against =
couriers who delivered applications early causing them to be "dismissed" =
from the day 1 pool. She indicated that all future vanity call =
processing might wait until these lawsuits had been adjudicated. All I =
want(ed) for Christmas was a new vanity call! Oh well, maybe next =
Jim, N9DHN (still and maybe forever!)
>From Fatchett.Mike at tci.com (Fatchett, Mike) Wed Nov 13 21:32:15 1996
From: Fatchett.Mike at tci.com (Fatchett, Mike) (Fatchett, Mike)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 14:32:15 -0700
Subject: FW: gate 2 vanity processing
I just spoke with the FCC.
At this time I was told they have no idea when they will restart the
processing of gate 2.
>From slazar19 at sgi.net (Spike Lazar) Wed Nov 13 21:57:10 1996
From: slazar19 at sgi.net (Spike Lazar) (Spike Lazar)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 16:57:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Vanity Update
Message-ID: <199611132157.QAA01734 at orion.bv.sgi.net>
At 03:24 PM 11/13/96 -0600, you wrote:
>Just talked to "Jody" at the FCC. She said all 2nd day and later
>applications for vanity calls are "on indefinite hold" until all the
>petitions that were filed relating to day 1 applications were settled.
>Additionally, she said all day 1 applications for club calls that were
>filed by a trustee who also received a vanity call were also on hold,
Does this mean a trustee who also has a vanity call really has no
vanity call at all because he does not have the license in hand?
Does this also mean any trustee who uses his own personal new
vanity call in Sweepstakes will be bootlegging since he has no
Will this also mean any trustee who uses his vanity call during
Sweepstakes will be DQ'd for using an illegal call?
Has any vanity applicant actually received a license and has it
in hand? and will he be Dq'd for the same reasons?
>From jdowning at intelenet.net (John Downing) Wed Nov 13 21:59:24 1996
From: jdowning at intelenet.net (John Downing) (John Downing)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:59:24 -0800
Subject: Vanity Update
Message-ID: <01BBD16A.E6C613A0 at downing-1.intelenet.net>
I've been told that when you reach middle age, litigation replaces sex :-).
V31DX / 8P9IX / W2NA
>From Luis_Delgadillo at mx.xmex.xerox.com (Delgadillo,Luis) Wed Nov 13 20:53:48 1996
From: Luis_Delgadillo at mx.xmex.xerox.com (Delgadillo,Luis) (Delgadillo,Luis)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:53:48 PST
Subject: Iambic Keyer decision for contest
Message-ID: <"<CC2E8A328144667C>CC2E8A328144667C at XMEX-0035-MS1.xmex"@-SMF->
I can hear 30-35 WPM but, I've reached the mechanical limits of my
home made paddle (18-20 WPM) -built with microswitches-.
The CQ WW CW is almost here, and I don't want to be swamped by it so ,
I 'll order a decent Iambic keyer.
The one that looks ok seems to be the Vibroplex Square Racer with the
magnetic system, though any other in that price range seems that it
could do the same.
Yes, I read the corresponding articles about Keyers that appeared this year
on the CQ magazine, but there are no ham stores in Mexico where
I can "feel & touch", so my decision will be strictly based on ur comments.
I'll summarize if enough interest.
Tnx and 73 de Luis XE2AC
Grid DL 81uv
E-mail: luis_delgadillo at MX.xmex,xerox.com
>From km9p at contesting.com (Bill Fisher KM9P) Wed Nov 13 23:07:00 1996
From: km9p at contesting.com (Bill Fisher KM9P) (Bill Fisher KM9P)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 18:07:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: FCC lied about Gate 2
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.961113175207.23915C-100000 at paris.akorn.net>
Well after much analysis of the calls given out in Gate 2 I can assure you
the following happened:
Applications via the WWW were in fact processed first. Further, if you
were the last person to submit your application via the WWW on that Monday
you would have received whatever callsign you wanted. I submitted my club
application at 12:00am and a few seconds on that Monday. I was the last
electronic filer to receive a callsign based on the application numbers.
I spoke with someone at the FCC today and was again told that all
applications were dealt with randomly.
Which means we are either getting lied to or the people handling the
phones at the FCC don't really know what happened. They are just being
told what to say.
Do I think the entire process should be done over again? Nope. I just
want an explanation as to why they felt compelled to lie about the
process. I think I deserve it.
Bill KM9P - K4AAA
More information about the CQ-Contest