YAESU IMD
Marijan Miletic
S56A at S55TCP.ampr.org
Fri Oct 18 05:49:05 EDT 1996
Hi happily retired Jim, I assume you are on the Big Island while Maui still
comes to my mind in this rainy & cold season here! I wish you loud
neighborough so IMD performance will become paramount :-) The whole trick
of HF is diging weak sigs in the presence of much stronger ones. Even in your
situation which is similar to our contest site 1114m asl in quiet national park
you would rarely expierence sole weak signal without W/JA banging around. This
might be the case during band openings and we use VHF type very low noise pre-
amps in such situations. Yeasu got them built in!
73 de Mario, S56A, N1YU.
>From broz at csn.net (John Brosnahan) Fri Oct 18 06:21:09 1996
From: broz at csn.net (John Brosnahan) (John Brosnahan)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 23:21:09 -0600
Subject: Butternut HF5V manual needed
Message-ID: <199610180521.AA15584 at ns-1.csn.net>
I am restoring an old Butternut HF5V with 160M option for use in
a casual SS effort and it doesn't have a manual. The factory
no longer has the manual for this old a beast.
If anyone has the manual for the HF5V and 160 add on kit
I would be happy to reimburse you for postage or better yet
for a fax, since SS will be here sooner than I care to think.
Thanks
John W0UN
John Brosnahan
La Salle Research Corp 24115 WCR 40 La Salle, CO 80645 USA
voice 970-284-6602 fax 970-284-0979 email broz at csn.net
>From ey8mm at sovam.com (Nodir M. Tursoon-Zadeh) Fri Oct 18 10:36:36 1996
From: ey8mm at sovam.com (Nodir M. Tursoon-Zadeh) (Nodir M. Tursoon-Zadeh)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 09:36:36 MMT
Subject: 160 meters
Message-ID: <199610180636.AA19475 at scylla.sovam.com>
Hi to all,
We are getting prepared for CQ WW SSB contest. Today we are going to finish
our 160 and 80 meters antennas. I need to test it and will be greatfull
for stations from EU and JA who (possible who need EY) look for me on 160 m
around 20:00 Z on 1,835 Mc (CW) (October 18, 1996). I will spend some
time on 40 m so if you find me there I will be happy to QSY on top band.
73, Nodir EY8MM
**************************************************************
Nodir M. Tursoon-Zadeh EY8MM * tel:+7(3772) 214-706
Member of EY2Q contest team * 212-844
ex. UJ8JMM, YA1MM, YA5MM, DL/EY8MM, * fax:+7(3772) 212-847
RJ0J, RJ1J, RJ2S, RJ4X, RJ5R, RJ6K, *
RJ8WCY, EU9J, EK8R *
**************************************************************
Mailing address: P.O.BOX 303, Dushanbe, 734001, Tajikistan
e-mail: <ey8mm at sovam.com>
<ey8mm at tarl.td.silk.glas.apc.org>
**************************************************************
>From n5ia at juno.com (Milt Jensen) Fri Oct 18 07:21:36 1996
From: n5ia at juno.com (Milt Jensen) (Milt Jensen)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 02:21:36 EDT
Subject: CQ WW Phone 160 SO, Zone 3
Message-ID: <19961018.055509.10302.2.N5IA at juno.com>
N5IA will operate /7, SO on 160 Meters only, from Zone 3 in Arizona for
the CQ WW SSB. The operation will be Field Day style from a 10,000'
(3,050 Meters) high mountain top, with generator power and temporary
antennas. The intent is to gain information about the effect of terrain
(or lack of) in the far field on the radiation angle, etc. All calls
appreciated.
73 es DX de
---Milt Jensen @ ARS N5IA---
---Virden, NM Route Box 176---
---Duncan, AZ -- 85534---
---H: (505) 358-2105 W: (520) 359-2503---
---Reply to n5ia at juno.com---
>From wrt at eskimo.com (Bill Turner) Tue Oct 15 11:34:51 1996
From: wrt at eskimo.com (Bill Turner) (Bill Turner)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 10:34:51 GMT
Subject: Post-Packet Era
References: <Pine.OSF.3.95.961014102849.18864C-100000 at gonzo.wolfenet.com>
Message-ID: <3267625e.40471199 at mail.eskimo.com>
On Mon, 14 Oct 1996 10:54:57 -0700 (PDT), hwardsil at wolfenet.com (Ward =
Silver)
wrote:
>
>The concerns about the "appropriateness" of packet spotting during
>contests reminds me very strongly of the debate when I entered =
engineering
>school as to calculators. (I'm carbon-dating myself, here...) =20
>
>My first semester followed the introduction by HP of the HP-35; the =
first
>handheld scientific calculator. There was a huge uproar about whether
>they would be allowed in class and for tests. Not everyone could afford
>them ($400) and most of us had slide rules. Later, the HP-45 came out,
>raising the capability of the calculators considerably. Neither of =
these
>had programming capability. For a while, no calculators were allowed
>during tests. Prices started dropping a bit and soon just about =
everyone
>had some form of calculator. I paid $75 for a TI SR-10 because it had =
the
>1/x and square-root capability!! It also spelled "SHELL OIL" upside =
down,
>but that's another story. Soon calculators were allowed in the =
classroom.
>
>The next brouhaha erupted over programmable calculators. It seemed that
>one could enter most of the applicable formulas from the current chapter
>and only had to remember which one was appropriate, not memorize the =
whole
>thing. The programs in the calculators were not in permanent memory. I
>remember one guy who never came to class, but aced every test. On a
>subsequent test, the prof came over and said, "Nice calculator!", picked
>it up and cycled power. The guy turned as white as a sheet and flunked
>big-time ;-) However, soon, the HP-41 prices came down and that issue,
>too, became moot.
>
>What is the point of this nostalgia? The point is that teaching and
>learning changed as a response to an environmental change; the =
calculator.
>The calculator freed students from rote memorization, and simultaneously
>freed the teacher from testing calculation skills. Testing is now much
>more involved with understanding the theory involved and not so much an
>exercise in juggling a slip stick's cursor. Technical training is the
>better for it, except for student's having to learn and re-learn that
>"Just because the calculator said it, doesn't mean it's so."
>
>The situation in contesting with respect to packet is at the same stage =
as
>for the introduction of programmable calculators. Yes, packet spotting
>(and the ability to cheat with it) is changing the nature of the game.
>Yet we can not go back to the old days and old ways, no matter how much =
we
>admire the successes and techniques of yore. To be sure, it is not the
>operating skill requirements that have diminished, just as the student
>that understood the theory would succeed with bamboo or silicon
>calculating instruments. Rather, additional skills will be required to
>succeed in the next era of contesting.
>
>I am not Cassandra and cannot foresee the future of contesting. =
However,
>if history is to be a guide, I am sure that a structural change is upon =
us
>from which many paths can be taken. Contesting at the peak of the
>upcoming cycle will still require rate and propagation savvy. Using
>multiple radios and computers will be more and more important as the
>technology allows the operator to be assisted in more than just logging;
>finding multipliers, making QSOs, determining optimum band-changes, etc.
>will all be computer-driven very shortly.
>
>The successful contester will be one that understands more of the
>"gestalt" of the contest. Perhaps contest scoring will evolve from the
>"Q-times-M" model to one including accuracy, efficiency, and dare I say
>style? "N6AA received 5.8 on that last band-change from the Finnish
>judge, yet the French only gave him a 5.5, dropping him into a tie for
>second with CT1BOH." Levity aside, we are about to be freed from the
>tyranny of the limitations of the basic radio. What will we do with =
that
>freedom?=20
>
>73, Ward N0AX
---------------------------------------------
Ward makes several good points, but I believe the "Packet Question" isn't
really about hardware - it's about single-op vs multi-op. Sure, nowadays
calculators are allowed in class, but just try bringing in someone to sit=
next
to you and feed you the answers....
To my way of thinking, if someone is feeding you spots via packet, you're
multi-op.
73, Bill W7LZP
wrt at eskimo.com
>From wb2raj at juno.com (DICK "KASH" KASHDIN) Fri Oct 18 19:34:13 1996
From: wb2raj at juno.com (DICK "KASH" KASHDIN) (DICK "KASH" KASHDIN)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 10:34:13 PST
Subject: FK5DX in CQ WW SSB TEST
Message-ID: <19961018.103414.3206.2.WB2RAJ at juno.com>
Operators Eric (FK8GM) and Franck (FK8HC) will be active from New
Caledonia during the CQ WW SSB DX Contest. They will use Special
Contest Callsign FK5DX and be active on 160-10 Meters as conditions
permit. QSL is direct via WB2RAJ.
Good luck in the contest
Kash - WB2RAJ
>From n4zr at contesting.com (Pete Smith) Fri Oct 18 12:48:40 1996
From: n4zr at contesting.com (Pete Smith) (Pete Smith)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 04:48:40 -0700
Subject: Post-Packet Era
Message-ID: <199610181148.EAA29947 at dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com>
I think the relative silence in response to Ward's post should not be taken
as a lack of interest, but ... at least in my case ... need to think before
responding. As always, he shows signs of having thought about what he wrote ;^}
At 10:54 AM 10/14/96 -0700, Ward, N0AX wrote:
(detail deleted)
>
>I am not Cassandra and cannot foresee the future of contesting. However,
>if history is to be a guide, I am sure that a structural change is upon us
>from which many paths can be taken. Contesting at the peak of the
>upcoming cycle will still require rate and propagation savvy. Using
>multiple radios and computers will be more and more important as the
>technology allows the operator to be assisted in more than just logging;
>finding multipliers, making QSOs, determining optimum band-changes, etc.
>will all be computer-driven very shortly.
>
>The successful contester will be one that understands more of the
>"gestalt" of the contest. Perhaps contest scoring will evolve from the
>"Q-times-M" model to one including accuracy, efficiency, and dare I say
>style? "N6AA received 5.8 on that last band-change from the Finnish
>judge, yet the French only gave him a 5.5, dropping him into a tie for
>second with CT1BOH." Levity aside, we are about to be freed from the
>tyranny of the limitations of the basic radio. What will we do with that
>freedom?
This is really the core of the question, but I guess I'd rephrase it
slightly. What we need to anticipate, and do something about, is the
ability to substitute the CPU for the human brain. There have been
satirical articles written about this, but we're nearly there. Mario and
others have written about how it could be technically possible soon.
So what to do? I think we need to define what's really the essence of
contesting, and protect that.
My favorite (perhaps overemphasized) analogy to HF radio contesting is
sailboat racing. Even at the very cutting edge, America's Cup racing, there
are a few ironclad rules. "Nothing but the wind" is one obvious one -
analogous to our insistence on only using HF radio for the actual contact.
But I believe that there is also an absolute requirement that the final
control interface between the boat and the wind must be a human - no
autopilot steering permitted. To me that's analogous to a requirement that
the human ear and brain should decode CW or copy phone transmissions. We
can define, I think, the point at which filtering and signal processing
become decoding or data extraction - for example, we could say that any
processing that makes the signal more audible is fine, but anything that
changes its essentials - e.g. cleans up fists or changes speed - is not.
I'm also sure there'll be fits and starts, and that ways will be found to
get around the intent of the rules - see Dennis Conner's trimaran. But I
also believe that peer reaction will provide the flywheel we need (also see
the trimaran).
Just a first thought. Let the discussion begin.
73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr at contesting.com
... and not changing!
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list