Sweepstakes SSB de N4UK
ramirezk at emi.com
ramirezk at emi.com
Mon Nov 18 11:46:01 EST 1996
Hello all!
Decided to give the new call a workout and enter my first
ever Sweepstakes in a serious effort.( by East coast standards)
Unfortunately I have not been able to scrounge up enough loot
to put up any aluminum in the air for the HF bands so I had to
settle for lots of copper wire. I Strung up a 2 element wire
quad on Saturday morning fixed to the NW for the harder to work
stuff. I ultimately found out that 20 meters belongs to the West
coast in this contest so I only made 29 Qs on that band. My
first tactical error was trying to call CQ on 20 at the start of
the contest. Apparently everyone else had the same idea. What a
MADHOUSE! After a half hour of frustration and 20 qs I split for
40 meters and finally got something going. Had some 120 hours on
40 for the next couple of hours. I was lucky enough to qsy to 75
just before everyone else did and got a lock on 3803 where I was
able to sit for the next 4 hours. I was amazed at the endless
supply of callers on that band. My first break was a 3 hour
sleeper at 2am local. I used to be able to stay awake in these
contests in the wee morning hours but not anymore and I'm only
35. The look ahead to my "Golden" years is bleak...
Started on 40 in the morning and had continued success
until the noon hours where I decided to take more breaks for
lunch and other stuff. This this was going to be a nightime
contest so I figured I'd do away with the breaks before dark.
Looking back, I think I goofed by not staying up until 9am and
sleeping from 9am till noon. I won't make that mistake again!
When the evening hours arrived on Sunday I thought I could
repeat the previous night's success but BOY WAS I WRONG!
I could not find a clear frequency on 40 or 75 for quite
awhile. When I finally squeezed in on 75 I spent lots of time
calling with no luck. That was my second tactical mistake. I
went to 75m way too early the second day. It wasn't long enough
to work new contacts. I dreaded the trip back to 40 knowing that
the BC interference was in progress and the other QRM (W6 and
W7) was going to begin at any time. The band was wall to wall
signals. I decided to make like a Romulin and use the trusty
"Cloaking devices" on my trusty Icom 740. I was able to secure a
spot almost on top of a BC station and for the next few hours
and until the end of the contest I had the best runs of the day!
40 was the best band for me and was the only band where I was
able to hold on to a frequency as long as I wanted it.
15 was a wasteland. All I heard were the big gun w6 and
w7s running. I haven't decided yet if I should spend any time
trying to improve the 20m situation or just concentrate on 15m
in anticipation of the coming better years.
I was surprised on how many station commented that SC
was the last state for the sweep. I didn't realize SC was rare
in Sweeps.
Here is the breakdown-
75m- 624 qs
40m- 1094 qs
20m- 29 qs
15m- 1 q
-----------------
total- 1748 qs x 76 mults = 265,696 section South Carolina
Equipment used- Icom IC-740 (need a second radio for next
year) Amp-1kw MLA 2500
Antennas- 75m inverted vee at 47 feet
20m 2wl lw at 47 feet to NE and 2el quad at 25 feet
fixed to NW
40m- Project X (secret) needs more testing. Made of
wires and at 40 feet.
Never went chasing mults and actually found NP4A, KH6FKG,and
KP2N when they started qrming my run frequencies!
Missed Yukon and Alaska for the sweep.
73 and thanks for the contacts! Ken N4UK ex-KP4XS
>From GKosmenko at stantech.com (Kosmenko, Gordon) Mon Nov 18 16:51:01 1996
From: GKosmenko at stantech.com (Kosmenko, Gordon) (Kosmenko, Gordon)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 09:51:01 -0700
Subject: SO 2 radio backlash?
Message-ID: <c=CA%a=_%p=STG%l=EDMSERV01-961118165101Z-3539 at edmserv01.stantech.com>
In my opinion their are two possible though camps regarding SO 2
radio use;
1. The leading use of all available techniques and hardware resources
to be an leading competitor. ie 2 radio, packet spotting, diverse
reception
etc.
2. Or, fine tuning the playing field to provide a more even playing
field
to ensure that the model for these radio games strike
measureability
in operator skill.
Identify the goals of radiosporting. Which will it be ??
73 de Gord VE6SV
ve6sv at oanet.com OR
**********************************************************************
Stanley Industrial Consultants Ltd
Gordon R. Kosmenko Direct Line (403) 917-7278
Manager, Business Development Fax (403) 917-7069
Email GKosmenko at stantech.com
(preferred for daytime immediate response)
**********************************************************************
>----------
>From: ppvvpp at mixcom.com[SMTP:ppvvpp at mixcom.com]
>Sent: Saturday, November 16, 1996 9:26 AM
>To: cq-contest at tgv.com
>Subject: SO 2 radio backlash?
>
>
>Single Op - 2 radio contesting is getting more and more popular and is
>responsible for bigger scores, but is the technique generating some negative
>backlash?
>
>I have been planning on going to this technique and have been talking to
>other contesters about it. Now I am hearing some resentment to the
>techinique.
>
>Here is the beef:
>
>1. A couple of contesters said they resent answering a CQ and being ignored
>while the other station is obviously working someone else on the second
>radio. One guy said he actually blacklisted a couple of the top scoring
>stations during SS CW when this happened to him. I was only on a few hours
>that weekend, but in a couple of cases I moved on when this happened to me.
>I don't remember if I worked them later, but suspect I didn't considering
>the short time I was on.
>
>2. Is it fair for a single operator to tie up more than one frequency? I
>don't have a problem with using a single CQ frequency and S&Ping on a second
>frequency. On the other hand, one guy questioned if it is fair to tie up a
>CQ frequency if you are only making one QSO every 5 minutes or so.
>
>I do have a problem with the dueling CQs, alternating CQs on separate bands.
>With conditions the way they are now, is it fair to tie up two frequencies
>when only a couple of bands are open? Especially on phone where there is not
>much space. One guy who uses this technique said that they are not "really"
>using two frequencies since they are only transmitting on one frequency at a
>time. Would they give up the frequency if someone asked if it was in use
>while they were not transmitting on it? If not, then are they really using
>only one frequency? On the other hand, how hard is it to hold two CQ
>frequencies on crowded bands?
>
>My question to the group: Is the resentment I have uncovered to these
>operating techiniques more widespread, or is my (small) sample statisically
>invalid?
>
>73 - Gary
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gary Sutcliffe, W9XT Unified Microsystems
>ppvvpp at mixcom.com PO Box 133 Slinger, WI 53086
>http://www.qth.com/w9xt 414-644-9036
>
>
>From 0006509309 at mcimail.com (Wayne Mills) Mon Nov 18 17:06:00 1996
From: 0006509309 at mcimail.com (Wayne Mills) (Wayne Mills)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 96 12:06 EST
Subject: C21 FAX
Message-ID: <54961118170645/0006509309DC3EM at MCIMAIL.COM>
For those interested, the C21BH birthday celebration and CQ Worldwide CW
contest effort will be available via fax at the following numbers: hotel -
674-444-3595, C21BH station - 674-444-3796.
N7NG
>From 0006509309 at mcimail.com (Wayne Mills) Mon Nov 18 17:06:00 1996
From: 0006509309 at mcimail.com (Wayne Mills) (Wayne Mills)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 96 12:06 EST
Subject: CQWW Macao
Message-ID: <45961118170654/0006509309DC3EM at MCIMAIL.COM>
XX9X, Taipa Island, Macao
Following the successful multi-multi effort in the CQ WW SSB contest, Pertti
Simovaara, OH2PM will be operating XX9X single-op, all-band during the CQ WW
CW contest. The effort is supported by the South China Sea DX Team - Nokia
Corporate Employee Alliance, and the Macau Amateur Radio Assosiation, ARM.
The fully furnished Cushcraft antenna farm was left at one of the highest
hotels in Macau and will be activated sporadically in the future. A special
effort will be made on 160 meters during this contest, since operation in
the CQ WW SSB contest was almost impossible because of noise problems. Only
one U.S. contact - N7UA - was made in that contest.
QSLs for all 1996 XX9X operations go via Martti Laine, OH2BH,
Nuottaniementie 3D20, 02230 Espoo, FINLAND.
N7NG
>From knupke at csee.usf.edu (KR4YL) Mon Nov 18 17:12:32 1996
From: knupke at csee.usf.edu (KR4YL) (KR4YL)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 12:12:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SO 2 radio backlash?
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95.961118120800.24327C-100000 at babbage>
On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Jim Pratt wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, Greg Fields wrote:
> The SS rules state that you can't "simultaneously transmit on more than
> one frequency". The dictionary defines "simultaneous" as:
>
> "happening, existing or done at the same time".
>
> I assume that to "transmit" means to emit power from a transmitter. When
> I operate two-radio, I am 100% certain I do not "simultaneously transmit"
> due to a fool-proof lockout box. I may, however, occupy two frequencies
> at the same time...
>
That is the only way I could see it be interperted. Transmit means
transmit, not listening to a second, third or fifteenth radio at the same
time.
73 Paul
(Clean Sweep SS96 Phone K4OJ Multi-Single team)
Paul Knupke, Jr. / Pinellas County ARES Asst. EC
knupke at babbage.csee.usf.edu / Pinellas County Skywarn
Largo, FL USA / Fidonet 1:3603/570
Amateur Radio Callsign: KR4YL / Florida Contest Group Member
>From 71111.260 at CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) Mon Nov 18 17:12:03 1996
From: 71111.260 at CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) (Hans Brakob)
Date: 18 Nov 96 12:12:03 EST
Subject: Start the bullets flying
Message-ID: <961118171203_71111.260_EHM87-1 at CompuServe.COM>
Lee, K0WA, said:
>I'm not to sure that you're correct in your assumption that the
>CALL SIGN has to be GIVEN in the exchange and in the exact order.
>The ARRL only wants the information copied accurately, I don't
>think they care what the order is.
The rule, quoted below, seems to clearly indicate the required
exchange elements, and the order they are to be sent. I
interpreted the rule to require the call as a specific element
of the exchange.
Further, I observed exchanges like the following which CLEARLY
were incomplete: (Calls fictitious)
Run station: "CQ SS WA0PQF"
Answer: "WB0WFF"
Run station: "WB0WFF 34 BRAVO 65 KANSAS"
Run station: "QRZ SS WA0PQF"
In the above example WA0PQF never specifically sent his call to
WB0WFF, but simply assumed that WB0WFF knew what it was and
"filled it in" as an element of the exchange.
Anyhow, that's just my interpretation, and your mileage may
vary. The only interpretation which counts will be the one
applied by blunt at arrl.org, et al!
73, de Hans, K0HB
Speaking for K0HB
----The Rule Quoted----
"4) Exchange: A consecutive serial number, precedence
("A" if you run 150-W output or less, "B" if more than 150
W, or "Q" if 5-W output or less), your call sign, check
(last two digits of the year you were first licensed) and
your ARRL Section. For example, WJ1U answers W1AW's call by
sending W1AW NR178 A WJ1U 89 CT for QSO number 178, less
than 150 W, first licensed in 1989 and Connecticut Section."
>From lenrev at wwa.com (Len Revelle) Mon Nov 18 17:17:55 1996
From: lenrev at wwa.com (Len Revelle) (Len Revelle)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17:17:55 GMT
Subject: QSO B4!!!!
Message-ID: <32948e1a.2157036 at sashimi.wwa.com>
During the CW weekend of SS, particularly the last few hours, I
received too many QSO B4 responses. I understand how it can happen but
I preface my exchange with the call of the station I'm working.
While these Q's are not uniques are there any attempts made to correct
for Q's claimed by only one of the operators?
Actually if I claimed all those who claimed Q's with me, I would have
met my 100K goal!
********************************
| Len Revelle lenrev at wwa.com |
| Illinois CIS 72607,1320 | =20
| KE9YR AMA 60055 |
********************************
>From Fatchett.Mike at tci.com (Fatchett, Mike) Mon Nov 18 17:21:36 1996
From: Fatchett.Mike at tci.com (Fatchett, Mike) (Fatchett, Mike)
Date: 18 Nov 1996 10:21:36 -0700
Subject: FCC Vanity Action
Message-ID: <016F732909B20032*/c=us/admd=attmail/prmd=tci/o=mailhub/ou=msmaildos/s=Fatchett/g=Mike/@MHS>
I believe that ARRL bulletin stated that all applicants would have an
equal chance of being selected or something close to that.
Mike
----------
From: (Rob Hummel)[SMTP:rhummel at monad.net]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 1996 3:25 PM
To: cq-contest at tgv.com
Subject: FCC Vanity Action
"Random" does not in any sense mean "randomized."
Random simply means the FCC made no guarantee as to how applications
would
be processed with respect to any external factor, such as time of
arrival,
state of origin, etc. It does not mean that there will be no correlation
to
any such factor.
Rob Hummel (WS1A) <rhummel at monad.net>
>From knupke at csee.usf.edu (KR4YL) Mon Nov 18 17:39:07 1996
From: knupke at csee.usf.edu (KR4YL) (KR4YL)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 12:39:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Catagories...
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95.961118123028.24976B-100000 at babbage>
I'm curious for comments about the fact every contest has a multi-op
catagories but no power classes. Why is it assumed multi-op entries have
high power? The station used for K4OJ SS (KE4ZYV) used this weekend
doesn't have ready access to 220 VAC. We competed nicely with other class
A stations but no way could we compete with 100 watts with 99% of the
other multi-op stations.
I can't see why there can't be QRP, Low Power and Hi Power divisions in MO
and MS catagories.
We managed a clean sweep still, and 804 Q. Compared to the 1500-2000 that
the MSHP stations had, I'd saw we did quite well.
Is it assumed that a serious Multi-Op station has to have high power? Its
more challenging to run low power, and much more QRP.
73 Paul
Paul Knupke, Jr. / Pinellas County ARES Asst. EC
knupke at babbage.csee.usf.edu / Pinellas County Skywarn
Largo, FL USA / Fidonet 1:3603/570
Amateur Radio Callsign: KR4YL / Florida Contest Group Member
>From 71111.260 at CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) Mon Nov 18 17:58:30 1996
From: 71111.260 at CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) (Hans Brakob)
Date: 18 Nov 96 12:58:30 EST
Subject: Incomplete Exchange
Message-ID: <961118175829_71111.260_EHM56-1 at CompuServe.COM>
N6NT (Nice call!!) said:
>There were a very few people "in" the contest who weren't repeating
>their call as part of the exchange. But it was clear to me that they
>were neophytes and did not have decent scores going for themselves.
I'm not talking about the newbies who "flub" the exchange from
inexperience, or the "not in the contest but wanna give you a point"
guys. These you nurture and encourage and coach and play "5 Questions"
with.
But there were at least two "top ten" class stations who were saving a
few milliseconds on each contact by leaving out the callsign element.
Since newbies quickly emulate these guys and their "cool shortcut",
the practice should be nipped immediately by letting these guys know
that incomplete exchanges don't make it into our logs.
Your mileage may vary.
73, de Hans, K0HB
Speaking for K0HB
>From aa9ax at iglou.com (Steven Sample) Mon Nov 18 18:08:24 1996
From: aa9ax at iglou.com (Steven Sample) (Steven Sample)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 13:08:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Incomplete exchange
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961118130023.7343A-100000 at iglou1>
On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Bruce Sawyer wrote:
> At 02:36 PM 11/18/96 +0000, Hans Brakob wrote:
>
> >You're not missing a point. The SS rules specifically call for 5 elements
> >in the exchange, and each much be sent in the correct order to constitute
> >a valid exchange.
> >
> >I noticed the same practice this weekend, and don't ever recall hearing it
> >before. Just a handful of stations were noted doing it, so maybe we can
> >nip this thing right at the outset. Those contacts should not count, and
> >were purged from my log as incomplete exchanges.
> >
> I'm sorry, but I think this is going to absurd extremes. I had lots of
> people come on during my SS begathon and start off with "I'm not in the
> contest, but you're 5-9 in Wallawulla, Mississippi." Whereupon, and who
> among us hasn't done this, I started the game of 5 questions to pull out a
> full exchange. (Probably the funniest moment of the contest for me came
> when one somewhat paranoid individual protested with a tense "Why do you
> need to know?" after I asked what year he first got his license.) Did I ask
> my questions in the proper sequence? No. Did I make him repeat his
> callsign when he knew I already had it? No. Am I going to toss these Q's
> out of my log becuase they fail the test mentioned above? Not on your life!
>
> There were a very few people "in" the contest who weren't repeating their
> call as part of the exchange. But it was clear to me that they were
> neophytes and did not have decent scores going for themselves. They'll
> catch on soon enough if they want to get their totals off the ground. I
> think what we want to do for these people is encourage them, not punish them.
>
> Bruce, N6NT
>
>Bruce...
I'm not certain that the intent of my observation was that the exchange
had to be given in the EXACT ORDER SEQUENCE, but that it has to be given
in its ENTIRETY. Given out of sequence, the sender just slows the process
down and eliminates any chance of a good rate. I did hear at least one
contester with a significant 4-digit count that was a big offender.
Yo are also assuming that we already know the call because it was left
out of the exchange. In most cases that may be correct, but not in all
cases.
What makes it so different to just send our zone in the WW, since everyone
sends 5NN anyway, and it, too, is ASSUMED? To my way of thinking, that is
not a valid exchange either!
The SPIRIT of the contest counts for something, and when 99% of the people
send the prescribed exchange, and 1% leave out a significant portion, it
becomes an issue worth examining. Take the amount of time it takes to
send your call in the exchange and multiply that times 1400 and see how
much time you sav compared to the people who are trying to do it
correctly. It adds up!!!
Just my opinion.
Steve / N9FD (Ex-AA9AX)
>From Fatchett.Mike at tci.com (Fatchett, Mike) Mon Nov 18 18:18:15 1996
From: Fatchett.Mike at tci.com (Fatchett, Mike) (Fatchett, Mike)
Date: 18 Nov 1996 11:18:15 -0700
Subject: Incomplete Exchange
Message-ID: <03AB13290A867007*/c=us/admd=attmail/prmd=tci/o=mailhub/ou=msmaildos/s=Fatchett/g=Mike/@MHS>
If this is the law. Then I think all we will get out of the call part
is the op saying the call as fast as possible, probably so fast that you
could not understand it anyway. What would be the point? If either
party fail to get the callsign correct the Q is no good anyway.
If the ARRL wants another piece of information copied they could use your
name, city, mothers maiden name, and get as much out of the exchange.
Personally I think the exchange is cumbersome enough and overall scares
off many would be participants. A casual op probably has no idea what
the "A" or the "B" are for, nor the "Check". If we want more
participants why don't we make it easier for the masses to join in?
Nobody wants to look like a fool be asking a ton of questions or feeling
like they are being grilled by the FBI just for a simple contact.
Mike
W0MU
Sorry I missed you all in SS :(
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list