ARRL 160 Meter Contest
hanina luria
4x4mu at shani.net
Fri Nov 29 23:31:17 EST 1996
Charles Shaw wrote:
>
> I have been watching the postings regarding the 160 meter DX window with an
> interest which goes back to the 1980's.
>
> So far, no one has pointed out directly that the statement in the rules this
> year and last: "(A) Participants are reminded that the segment 1.830 to
> 1.835 should be used for intercontinental QSOs only, in conformance with the
> ARRL band plan." CONFLICTS with the band plan as printed in the
> "Considerate Operator's Frequency Guide". (Available on the ARRL Web Pages
> and from the ARRL Info Server via e-mail.) (Also note that those two
> sources do not agree completely with the "Guide" as published on page 104 of
> January, 1996 QST.) (*Conflicts*, because the band plan would say 1.830 to
> *1.840*.)
>
> I have assumed that since *DX* is allowed to work *only* W/VE for contest
> credit, that *for the purposes of this contest* the sentence quoted above
> applies to and distinguishes *us W/VE's* from "the" *DX*, --and constitutes
> a *temporary exception* to the published band plan. I said *assumed*,
> because it really is not *clearly stated*, and it is certainly not
> universally understood.
>
> See Bruce's original 3 paragraphs for comparison.
> Only--he said, *ANY ARRL* sponsored contest.
>
> >From the standpoint of someone a long way from both coasts--and most of the
> DX multipliers--it worked better last year than in most recent years; and it
> seemed to cary over into January. Perhaps this discussion will stimulate
> further improvement. I hope so--I don't like arguments!
>
> 73, Charles - N5UL - New Mexico
Charles Shaw wrote:
>
> I have been watching the postings regarding the 160 meter DX window with an
> interest which goes back to the 1980's.
Charles Shaw wrote:
>
> I have been watching the postings regarding the 160 meter DX window with an
> interest which goes back to the 1980's.
>
> So far, no one has pointed out directly that the statement in the rules this
> year and last: "(A) Participants are reminded that the segment 1.830 to
> 1.835 should be used for intercontinental QSOs only, in conformance with the
> ARRL band plan." CONFLICTS with the band plan as printed in the
> "Considerate Operator's Frequency Guide". (Available on the ARRL Web Pages
> and from the ARRL Info Server via e-mail.) (Also note that those two
> sources do not agree completely with the "Guide" as published on page 104 of
> January, 1996 QST.) (*Conflicts*, because the band plan would say 1.830 to
> *1.840*.)
>
> I have assumed that since *DX* is allowed to work *only* W/VE for contest
> credit, that *for the purposes of this contest* the sentence quoted above
> applies to and distinguishes *us W/VE's* from "the" *DX*, --and constitutes
> a *temporary exception* to the published band plan. I said *assumed*,
> because it really is not *clearly stated*, and it is certainly not
> universally understood.
>
> See Bruce's original 3 paragraphs for comparison.
> Only--he said, *ANY ARRL* sponsored contest.
>
> >From the standpoint of someone a long way from both coasts--and most of the
> DX multipliers--it worked better last year than in most recent years; and it
> seemed to cary over into January. Perhaps this discussion will stimulate
> further improvement. I hope so--I don't like arguments!
>
> 73, Charles - N5UL - New Mexico
Charles Shaw wrote:
>
> I have been watching the postings regarding the 160 meter DX window with an
> interest which goes back to the 1980's.
>
> So far, no one has pointed out directly that the statement in the rules this
> year and last: "(A) Participants are reminded that the segment 1.830 to
> 1.835 should be used for intercontinental QSOs only, in conformance with the
> ARRL band plan." CONFLICTS with the band plan as printed in the
> "Considerate Operator's Frequency Guide". (Available on the ARRL Web Pages
> and from the ARRL Info Server via e-mail.) (Also note that those two
> sources do not agree completely with the "Guide" as published on page 104 of
> January, 1996 QST.) (*Conflicts*, because the band plan would say 1.830 to
> *1.840*.)
>
> I have assumed that since *DX* is allowed to work *only* W/VE for contest
> credit, that *for the purposes of this contest* the sentence quoted above
> applies to and distinguishes *us W/VE's* from "the" *DX*, --and constitutes
> a *temporary exception* to the published band plan. I said *assumed*,
> because it really is not *clearly stated*, and it is certainly not
> universally understood.
>
> See Bruce's original 3 paragraphs for comparison.
> Only--he said, *ANY ARRL* sponsored contest.
>
> >From the standpoint of someone a long way from both coasts--and most of the
> DX multipliers--it worked better last year than in most recent years; and it
> seemed to cary over into January. Perhaps this discussion will stimulate
> further improvement. I hope so--I don't like arguments!
>
> 73, Charles - N5UL - New Mexico
Charles Shaw wrote:
>
> I have been watching the postings regarding the 160 meter DX window with an
> interest which goes back to the 1980's.
>
> So far, no one has pointed out directly that the statement in the rules this
> year and last: "(A) Participants are reminded that the segment 1.830 to
> 1.835 should be used for intercontinental QSOs only, in conformance with the
> ARRL band plan." CONFLICTS with the band plan as printed in the
> "Considerate Operator's Frequency Guide". (Available on the ARRL Web Pages
> and from the ARRL Info Server via e-mail.) (Also note that those two
> sources do not agree completely with the "Guide" as published on page 104 of
> January, 1996 QST.) (*Conflicts*, because the band plan would say 1.830 to
> *1.840*.)
>
> I have assumed that since *DX* is allowed to work *only* W/VE for contest
> credit, that *for the purposes of this contest* the sentence quoted above
> applies to and distinguishes *us W/VE's* from "the" *DX*, --and constitutes
> a *temporary exception* to the published band plan. I said *assumed*,
> because it really is not *clearly stated*, and it is certainly not
> universally understood.
>
> See Bruce's original 3 paragraphs for comparison.
> Only--he said, *ANY ARRL* sponsored contest.
>
> >From the standpoint of someone a long way from both coasts--and most of the
> DX multipliers--it worked better last year than in most recent years; and it
> seemed to cary over into January. Perhaps this discussion will stimulate
> further improvement. I hope so--I don't like arguments!
>
> 73, Charles - N5UL - New Mexico
Charles Shaw wrote:
>
> I have been watching the postings regarding the 160 meter DX window with an
> interest which goes back to the 1980's.
>
> So far, no one has pointed out directly that the statement in the rules this
> year and last: "(A) Participants are reminded that the segment 1.830 to
> 1.835 should be used for intercontinental QSOs only, in conformance with the
> ARRL band plan." CONFLICTS with the band plan as printed in the
> "Considerate Operator's Frequency Guide". (Available on the ARRL Web Pages
> and from the ARRL Info Server via e-mail.) (Also note that those two
> sources do not agree completely with the "Guide" as published on page 104 of
> January, 1996 QST.) (*Conflicts*, because the band plan would say 1.830 to
> *1.840*.)
>
> I have assumed that since *DX* is allowed to work *only* W/VE for contest
> credit, that *for the purposes of this contest* the sentence quoted above
> applies to and distinguishes *us W/VE's* from "the" *DX*, --and constitutes
> a *temporary exception* to the published band plan. I said *assumed*,
> because it really is not *clearly stated*, and it is certainly not
> universally understood.
>
> See Bruce's original 3 paragraphs for comparison.
> Only--he said, *ANY ARRL* sponsored contest.
>
> >From the standpoint of someone a long way from both coasts--and most of the
> DX multipliers--it worked better last year than in most recent years; and it
> seemed to cary over into January. Perhaps this discussion will stimulate
> further improvement. I hope so--I don't like arguments!
>
> 73, Charles - N5UL - New Mexico
> So far, no one has pointed out directly that the statement in the rules this
> year and last: "(A) Participants are reminded that the segment 1.830 to
> 1.835 should be used for intercontinental QSOs only, in conformance with the
> ARRL band plan." CONFLICTS with the band plan as printed in the
> "Considerate Operator's Frequency Guide". (Available on the ARRL Web Pages
> and from the ARRL Info Server via e-mail.) (Also note that those two
> sources do not agree completely with the "Guide" as published on page 104 of
> January, 1996 QST.) (*Conflicts*, because the band plan would say 1.830 to
> *1.840*.)
>
> I have assumed that since *DX* is allowed to work *only* W/VE for contest
> credit, that *for the purposes of this contest* the sentence quoted above
> applies to and distinguishes *us W/VE's* from "the" *DX*, --and constitutes
> a *temporary exception* to the published band plan. I said *assumed*,
> because it really is not *clearly stated*, and it is certainly not
> universally understood.
>
> See Bruce's original 3 paragraphs for comparison.
> Only--he said, *ANY ARRL* sponsored contest.
>
> >From the standpoint of someone a long way from both coasts--and most of the
> DX multipliers--it worked better last year than in most recent years; and it
> seemed to cary over into January. Perhaps this discussion will stimulate
> further improvement. I hope so--I don't like arguments!
>
> 73, Charles - N5UL - New Mexico
Charles Shaw wrote:
>
> I have been watching the postings regarding the 160 meter DX window with an
> interest which goes back to the 1980's.
>
> So far, no one has pointed out directly that the statement in the rules this
> year and last: "(A) Participants are reminded that the segment 1.830 to
> 1.835 should be used for intercontinental QSOs only, in conformance with the
> ARRL band plan." CONFLICTS with the band plan as printed in the
> "Considerate Operator's Frequency Guide". (Available on the ARRL Web Pages
> and from the ARRL Info Server via e-mail.) (Also note that those two
> sources do not agree completely with the "Guide" as published on page 104 of
> January, 1996 QST.) (*Conflicts*, because the band plan would say 1.830 to
> *1.840*.)
>
> I have assumed that since *DX* is allowed to work *only* W/VE for contest
> credit, that *for the purposes of this contest* the sentence quoted above
> applies to and distinguishes *us W/VE's* from "the" *DX*, --and constitutes
> a *temporary exception* to the published band plan. I said *assumed*,
> because it really is not *clearly stated*, and it is certainly not
> universally understood.
>
> See Bruce's original 3 paragraphs for comparison.
> Only--he said, *ANY ARRL* sponsored contest.
>
> >From the standpoint of someone a long way from both coasts--and most of the
> DX multipliers--it worked better last year than in most recent years; and it
> seemed to cary over into January. Perhaps this discussion will stimulate
> further improvement. I hope so--I don't like arguments!
>
> 73, Charles - N5UL - New Mexico
Charles Shaw wrote:
>
> I have been watching the postings regarding the 160 meter DX window with an
> interest which goes back to the 1980's.
>
> So far, no one has pointed out directly that the statement in the rules this
> year and last: "(A) Participants are reminded that the segment 1.830 to
> 1.835 should be used for intercontinental QSOs only, in conformance with the
> ARRL band plan." CONFLICTS with the band plan as printed in the
> "Considerate Operator's Frequency Guide". (Available on the ARRL Web Pages
> and from the ARRL Info Server via e-mail.) (Also note that those two
> sources do not agree completely with the "Guide" as published on page 104 of
> January, 1996 QST.) (*Conflicts*, because the band plan would say 1.830 to
> *1.840*.)
>
> I have assumed that since *DX* is allowed to work *only* W/VE for contest
> credit, that *for the purposes of this contest* the sentence quoted above
> applies to and distinguishes *us W/VE's* from "the" *DX*, --and constitutes
> a *temporary exception* to the published band plan. I said *assumed*,
> because it really is not *clearly stated*, and it is certainly not
> universally understood.
>
> See Bruce's original 3 paragraphs for comparison.
> Only--he said, *ANY ARRL* sponsored contest.
>
> >From the standpoint of someone a long way from both coasts--and most of the
> DX multipliers--it worked better last year than in most recent years; and it
> seemed to cary over into January. Perhaps this discussion will stimulate
> further improvement. I hope so--I don't like arguments!
>
> 73, Charles - N5UL - New Mexico
>From kc7v at earthlink.net (Mike Fulcher) Fri Nov 29 23:27:22 1996
From: kc7v at earthlink.net (Mike Fulcher) (Mike Fulcher)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 16:27:22 -0700
Subject: EQ4A , Y63A
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19961129162712.006a1060 at mail.earthlink.net>
Anyone know the real country of these 2 calls worked during the cw test?
Y63A
EQ4A
Thanks,
Mike
===================
Mike Fulcher KC7V
One of the "VOO-DUDES"
VooDoo Contest Group
("VooDoo" - White magic from Africa)
>From bhorn at netcom.com (Bruce Horn) Fri Nov 29 17:05:40 1996
From: bhorn at netcom.com (Bruce Horn) (Bruce Horn)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 09:05:40 -0800
Subject: 2 Radio Station Design
Message-ID: <v02140b00aec455c4110f@[204.212.59.177]>
Hi,
I'm interested in how those contesters who operate single op, two radio,
have designed the layout of their equipment. Please take a moment to
respond to the following questions. I'll summarize the responses to the
reflector.
These questions assume using two transceivers, one used as a run station
and one used for S&P, and computerized logging. Describe layouts from the
viewpoint of the operator.
1. Describe how you currently have your transceivers, keyboard(s), computer
monitor(s) arranged? (e.g. vertically stacked transceivers,
monitor/keyboard to right of transceivers)
2. How do you control the frequency of the transceiver used for S&Ping?
(e.g. knob on transceiver, remote VFO knob, computer keyboard, etc.)
3. Do you believe your current equipment layout is optimum? If not, what
changes would you make?
4. Have you previously used layouts other than your current one? If so,
what layouts and why did you change?
Thanks.
73 de Bruce, WA7BNM (bhorn at netcom.com)
>From rocker at datasync.com (Ray Rocker) Fri Nov 29 17:16:45 1996
From: rocker at datasync.com (Ray Rocker) (Ray Rocker)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 11:16:45 -0600 (CST)
Subject: The Contest Computer!! The X2 Upgrade
Message-ID: <199611291716.LAA16766 at osh1.datasync.com>
I feel compelled to toss in my $.02 on these subjects even though
it's getting away from contesting. (But I promise to say nothing
about callsigns and the V word.)
> US Robotics has announced the X2 upgrade. What is it? Basically it works like
> this. You have a 28K modem and upload to your internet provider at that
> speed. With X2 the internet provider downloads to you at 56K!!!
I don't know about the quality of analog phone lines in the rest of
the world, but around here we're lucky to get a 28.8 Kbps connection
reliably. 26.4 and 24.0 are common. 33.6 Kbps, which is theoretically
possible with a current USR modem at each end, is virtually unheard of.
ISDN can give you fast Internet access now, if you're willing to pay
the inflated tariffs currently slapped on it, unless you live in
one of the few states like Tennessee who know how to put the Bells
in their place when it comes to ISDN tariffs.
> AOL has signed up for the X2 program. The really good news is that AOL has
> decided to provide unlimited access to AOL and the NET for $19.95/month
> starting 1 DEC. If you want to pay upfront for a year of usuage it is
> $17.95/month.
> Pay upfront for 2 years of usuage it is $14.95/month.
I don't use AOL but would be very leary about paying a year in advance,
given that 5 million or so subscribers are suddenly going to have no
more incentive to carefully ration their connect time. Busy signals
just give me the heebie jeebies.
-- Ray, WQ5L, praying for MORE sunspots to pop up before Dec. 14
>From n2vw at skyhigh.com (Jack) Fri Nov 29 19:29:26 1996
From: n2vw at skyhigh.com (Jack) (Jack)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 19:29:26 -0000
Subject: 8875 FAILURE TIME
Message-ID: <199611292032.PAA00354 at jupiter.skyhigh.com>
Guess it is 8875 demise time... no complaints though. The trusty amp has a
date of 1977 on it.
VP5T blew an 8875 in one MLA2500 just after the CQWW SSB contest.
GOOD TIMING!
any leads to a new,pull or used tube(s) would help the next contest
dxpedition.
a low price would help the pocketbook.
info to: <n2vw at skyhigh.com> would be appreciated.
>From w6go at netcom.com (Jay O'Brien - W6GO) Fri Nov 29 19:35:13 1996
From: w6go at netcom.com (Jay O'Brien - W6GO) (Jay O'Brien - W6GO)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 11:35:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: FCC Antenna Registration
Message-ID: <199611291935.LAA19171 at netcom19.netcom.com>
Does your antenna require registration on FCC form 854?
Generally, if it is over 200' AGL (less if close to an airport
runway), it must be registered on FCC form 854. The process was
recently changed as reported in the June 21, 1996 ARRL Letter.
Prior to filing a form 854 you must file a FAA form 7460-1 and
receive an Aeronautical Study number from the FAA. Refer to the
ARRL Letter on the ARRL web site for more details.
The filing schedule started July 1, 1996, with MI and MT filings
due in that month. The filing schedule for California is Jan 1 -
Feb 28, 1997. I reviewed my coordinates and find that what I filed
ten years ago is in error by more than one minute in Longitude and
one minute in Latitude, so I must file an "alteration" with the
FAA. The FAA says they will issue a new Study Number, so I cannot
file the FCC form 854 until I receive the new number from the FAA.
My FAA Region is quoting 45 days for processing my form 7460-1, so
by filing today with the FAA, I will be able to make the filing
schedule for my state.
If you have been waiting for your FCC filing window, you should
consider the FAA processing delay. It may already be too late!
73, Jay
>From Bill.Gallier.KQ4GC at postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Billy R. Gallier) Fri Nov 29 19:59:26 1996
From: Bill.Gallier.KQ4GC at postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Billy R. Gallier) (Billy R. Gallier)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 19:59:26 +0000
Subject: Vanity snafu
Message-ID: <19961129195924.AAA23932 at LOCALNAME>
Submitted 610V on time. Was there on 23rd. Received letter of dismissal
for reason: None of my calls availabe. Okay.. I wasn't one of the lucky
ones.
On the 27th of September my first choice was issued to a Jenkins. This
was his second choice... It was W4DX . .
Called FCC. The call W4DX not avail on 23rd! How did it become avail
on the 27th??? Never got a straight answer!
This is my only and final vanity comment..
KQ4GC
bill.gallier.kq4gc at worldnet.att.net
>From w5robert at blkbox.COM (Robert) Fri Nov 29 20:21:29 1996
From: w5robert at blkbox.COM (Robert) (Robert)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 14:21:29 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Is the K Index trustable?
Message-ID: <9611291421.aa04136 at blkbox.COM>
Carlos, If I understand the K index it is a number
related to conditions at the WWV site in CO. See
QST Oct. 1996 pg 75 for details.
--
73 Robert W5AJ w5robert at blkbox.com
WB5CRG, VK5CRG, WB5CRG/VP2M & VP2E & WN5CRG !
>From kc7v at earthlink.net (Mike Fulcher) Sat Nov 30 03:40:14 1996
From: kc7v at earthlink.net (Mike Fulcher) (Mike Fulcher)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 20:40:14 -0700
Subject: x5 qso
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19961129204010.006a84f0 at mail.earthlink.net>
Can someone remind me the rule for counting a X5 qso. Do the points count?
Mike
===================
Mike Fulcher KC7V
One of the "VOO-DUDES"
VooDoo Contest Group
("VooDoo" - White magic from Africa)
>From mihry at mail.topher.net (michael d. ihry) Fri Nov 29 21:10:12 1996
From: mihry at mail.topher.net (michael d. ihry) (michael d. ihry)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 15:10:12 -0600
Subject: help with new mex qso party
Message-ID: <199611292110.PAA19189 at mail.topher.net>
hello all
need a list of all the new mex counties for the new mex qso party
thanks
n5kb
>From marcelo at ax.ibase.org.br (Marcelo) Fri Nov 29 21:29:50 1996
From: marcelo at ax.ibase.org.br (Marcelo) (Marcelo)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 19:29:50 -0200 (EDT)
Subject: x5 qso
Message-ID: <199611292129.TAA06585 at ax.ibase.br>
X5AV
I thought I was the only one to work this guy. I have no idea and CT could not resolve the prefix. Does anyone know where is he? He gave me zone 20 if I remember well.
Thanks
Marcelo, PY1KN
>Can someone remind me the rule for counting a X5 qso. Do the points count?
>
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list