WAE e-mailed logs confirmations?

[Barry Kutner]

I sent my WAE SSB logs several weeks ago to the compuserve.com 
address given, but have received no confirmation of receipt despite 
inquiries.

Has anyone received confirmation of receipt of logs?

Tnx/Barry

--
Barry Kutner, W2UP                           Internet: w2up at voicenet.com
Newtown, PA                   FRC            alternate: barry at w2up.wells.com
                                            

>From tree at lady.axian.com (Larry Tyree)  Thu Oct 10 18:57:14 1996
From: tree at lady.axian.com (Larry Tyree) (Larry Tyree)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 10:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: NCJ CW Sprint Logs
Message-ID: <199610101757.KAA07108 at lady.axian.com>


Just a quick reminder that if you haven't sent in your NCJ CW Sprint 
log, it is too late...  that is, unless you send it to me in electronic 
format so I receive it in the next week.  

Also, this will be the last time I am processing the logs for the NCJ CW 
sprint.  Use cwsprint at contesting.com to send you logs and they will 
get to the new editor okay.  Some people had my old cmicro address
which appears to have stopped working about a month ago.  If you 
sent me your log and didn't get a response - that means I probably
didn't get it.

The Internet Sprint results are still in the works.  I hope that we
will have them out before the end of the month.  Sorry for the delay.

73 Tree N?TR
tree at contesting.com

>From jayt at comtch.iea.com (Jay Townsend)  Thu Oct 10 19:01:31 1996
From: jayt at comtch.iea.com (Jay Townsend) (Jay Townsend)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 11:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Packet and Contesting and other Analysis
Message-ID: <199610101801.SAA20416 at comtch.iea.com>

Since Dick brought it up in his analysis.

Bridge:

 A competitive event in which there are several if not many classes
of entry.  Pairs, teams, Knockouts.  It is also interesting to note
that they have MANY conditions of entry. Old folks only (called
Seniors), Flighted events by Master Points (awarded by winning
events), Men's, Woman's, just to mention a few.

As to assists.  You nearly always have a partner to give you
assistance in analysis, bidding, and criticism of your play.

Just like in radio when the top bridge players started winning all
the Master Points they started making new classes of events and even
events limited by ability.

Packet seems to be just that. A different class of operation to
enable those that choose to entry a class at which they might be able
to be competitive.

But long before packet there existed other forms of spotting it was
just that they weren't as wide spread. The East it appears has always
been in VHF range.

Most people want to have a chance in radio to win something and just
like in bridge they will alter the conditions of entry to make sure
that choices they like are available.

As to Packet it has greatly effected contesting and DXing and I am
not sure that it was for the good, but much like computers and
logging programs and analysis it has improved the fun.  When we had
only paper logs and no way to get disks and check the logs was it
better than what we have now? I think not.  

When only the YCCC has running a giant spotting net (with apologies
to all the other mega-clubs) was that as good as when Joe Rudi, NK7U,
doing a M/S in Baker has some access to the WS7I cluster and the
"megacluster" ?

Times change, events change, and technology changes.  We could go
back to hand keyers or bugs, but then my call would be a lot harder
to copy than with N6TR and his fine weighting system via the parallel
port.


-- 
Jay Townsend, WS7I  < jayt at iea.com >


>From k0wa at southwind.net (Lee Buller)  Thu Oct 10 19:55:40 1996
From: k0wa at southwind.net (Lee Buller) (Lee Buller)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 13:55:40 -0500
Subject: L-Antenna Feed
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961010185540.006f6b00 at southwind.net>

This weekend, I am putting up a 160 meter L-antenna and a set of radials.
Total length will be 130 to 140 feet with a 60 foot verticle component and a
70 to 75 foot horizontal component.

Can anyone point me in the right direction as to tuning this antenna?  Some
of the current thinking on doing so?  I was considering using my SPC
transmatch to match the antenna using a piece of coax going out of the shack
to the feed point of the l and hooking the shield to the ground and the
radials and the center wire to the antenna.   One would think that the SPC
transmatch would be able to tune the antenna.  Or is there a simpler ro more
effecient way of matching from people vast amount of knowledge?

Radials will be four to six of various lengths that I can get on the city
lot.  They will be dog legging all of the place, but I've done that before
with a shunt fed tower and it worked FB.

Comment and Flames to:

Lee
k0wa at southwind.net



>From aa4lr at radio.org (Bill Coleman)  Thu Oct 10 20:21:09 1996
From: aa4lr at radio.org (Bill Coleman) (Bill Coleman)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 96 15:21:09 -0400
Subject: Analogous Activities to Packet-Aided Contesting
Message-ID: <m0vBQha-0002tlC at wa4mei.radio.org>

>From:        Norton, Richard, nortonr at mrd.srl.dsto.defence.gov.au
>
>Some comments on the concept of some competitors aiding some other 
>competitors in activities similar to radio contesting follow.

These activities are similar? Hmm. When looking at these activities, I 
see nothing analogous to the classic tiered competition of radio 
contesting - SO, M/S, M/M. 

>1) Birding
>
>Birding, or sport birdwatching, is about the closest activity to radio 
>contesting that I know of.
>
>However, when it comes to their contests, there is no spotting or helping 
>allowed.

Do they allow team birding (M/M)? Do they have birding teams with only 
one set of binoculars and one field guide (M/S)? Are their limits on 
their optical enhancements -- classes with and without binoculars (low 
and high power)?

>2) Bridge
>
>The card game of bridge is similar to radio contests in that players try to 
>use clues to decide their play, just like contesters use clues to decide 
>whether and where to CQ or search for multipliers.

But Bridge tournaments are always played with pairs of players. There is 
no SO playing.

>3) Any "Sport"
>
>It is a key rule in any sport that competitors play their best to win. They 
>do not play poorly or aid friendly teams so that their friends can win, have 
>big scores, or set records.

Most popular sports (Baseball, Basketball, Football, Soccer, Volleyball, 
etc) are team events -- only M/M if you will. I fail to see the analogy.

Further, these sports have referees whose judgement is final. Contesting 
referees ajudicate based on limited transcripts of the event -- very 
RARELY on the basis of the actual competition. If all contests were like 
WRTC (hmm no SO category there, either), you might have something. 

>California baseball teams do not have an agreement that they should pitch 
>easy to each other, so that the home-run champion will be from California.

The presence of referees helps to keep the play honest.

Team sports do have "handicapping" by the referees. Sometimes 
exceptionally good teams aren't allowed to "trounce" poorer teams since 
the referees call the various teams to different standards. I've also 
seen this work in reverse where a referee called my volleyball team 
tighter in a vain attempt to raise the level of play. 

>The concept of some competitors aiding other competitors in a sport is 
>simply unsportsmanlike.

Not true. In many forms of racing, it is considered sportsmanlike to help 
out your competitors when they encounter difficulty. 

Contest organizers have always permitted a sort of "casual" operating 
assistance -- the kind you hear when the big guns meet briefly and 
exchange information on their scores and where they have worked (or not) 
juicy multipliers.

>Help make radio contesting a sport. Support elimination of packet-spotting 
>in any serious radio contest.

Any radio contest that doesn't account for packet spotting isn't serious. 
What we need are separate categories for those using packet (or other) 
spotting assistance. Fortunately, most serious contests have a SOA 
cateogry within their rules. This is good.

This is not a new problem. Previously, VHF DX-spotting nets existed. 
Sometimes people would monitor these nets, yet submit logs as 
single-operator. The only thing that has changed is the level of 
sophistication of the network.

Many serious radio contests involve DX stations. DX-spotting networks 
have been developed by DXers to increase their chances of bagging that 
rare DX. Since these DXers have invested considerable resources into the 
development of these networks, it would be foolish to deny them access to 
these networks during a contest -- if that is their desire. It would be 
equally foolish to REQUIRE the use of such a network in a contest, since 
some operators either do not have access to, or do not desire assistance 
from the spotting network.

The distinction of Single-Operator / Assisted is important, in my 
opinion. In a single operator station, the lone operator performs all of 
the operating, spotting and logging functions. At multi-operator 
stations, the tasks of operating, spotting and logging can be divided 
amoung several individuals.

SOA, the lone operator only receives assistance in spotting stations. He 
still has to operate and log the contacts.

It all boils down to the bottom line -- do you want to encourage or 
discourage contest activity? Contests die without activity. The SOA 
category allows some operators to participate using their spotting 
networks, without getting lumped into multioperator or confused with 
single operator contestants. Their activity is appreciated.

If anything, we should support, not eliminate, separate categories for 
packet spotting in serious contests.



Bill Coleman, AA4LR           Mail: aa4lr at radio.org
Quote: "Not in a thousand years will man ever fly!"
            -- Wilbur Wright, 1901


>From 71111.260 at CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob)  Thu Oct 10 20:42:42 1996
From: 71111.260 at CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) (Hans Brakob)
Date: 10 Oct 96 15:42:42 EDT
Subject: Analogous Activies to packet
Message-ID: <961010194241_71111.260_EHM76-1 at CompuServe.COM>

N6AA said:
>
>If you see a group of people looking into a tree with binoculars, you are
>allowed to investigate the pile-up, but you are supposed to tell them that
>you are in a contest, and ask them not to identify the bird for you.
>

Is it OK to tell you if I see a Ruby-Lipped-Wallet-Sucker approaching your
back pocket while you are engrossed in a JA-run on 20? <g>

73, de Hans, K0HB
Lord High Protector of 14.057 during SS




>From thompson at mindspring.com (David L. Thompson)  Thu Oct 10 20:30:15 1996
From: thompson at mindspring.com (David L. Thompson) (David L. Thompson)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 15:30:15 -0400
Subject: DX spots (packet) and contesting
Message-ID: <199610102017.QAA18907 at itchy.mindspring.com>

Dx spots should be illegal for all single operator contestants and legal for
Multi operator and assisted (if the class exists for a given contest).

Unfortunately spots come from many more sources than just packet...although
packet is the base for most of the spots.   I can sit here and get spots
from OH2BUA on the Web (I just worked Peter 5X1T thanks to a spot here on 40
SSB at 2230Z), over the 2 meter Dx tip off frequency as individual hams put
them out, or via Dx alert (packet read on 2 meter SSB).  Now a japanese firm
has a CW reader for packet spots.   All this without ever connecting to
packet or as we say in business without an" audit trail."

Contesting should be fun and inviting to new operators to jump in an improve
their skills.  There should be tolerance for all types of competitors..from
those who can efficiently use 2 radios on single op via complete computer
control to those that have low power, a hand key and hand log.
The goal of contesting is to get to the best you or your group can
be....based on funding, property, and individual skill.

I feel that most contestants are honest and that the average contester
should worry about operating and leave "judging" to the contest directors
and judges.  Make it very clear that
cheating is not accepted and go from there.  Of course the judges are always
looking for ways
to do a better job of judging...but this is a judges discussion not one for
open debate.

We still someone to take up the challenge of writing a new version of Bill
Leonard's (W2SKE) "Battle of the Hams."    This needs to be someone with a
well known name to the general public
who is a writer.   Roy Neal K6DUE turned us down, but passed some ideas.
Is there a writer or journalist (any media) or well known figure who into
contesting out there  (EU, NA, SA)?

Dave K4JRB