J7 in CQ WW RTTY - isnt there a rule?

Zack Widup w9sz at prairienet.org
Mon Sep 23 18:36:54 EDT 1996

>>The PA team currently active as J79BP,RC,QA,WP from Dominica in the
>>carribean asked me to bring the following to your attention:
>>-  The team will be a Multi-Single entry in the CQ WW RTTY Contest.
>>   The callsign used during this activity will be J77C.
>etc etc etc.
>Isnt there a rule that prohibits soliciting QSOs for a contest?
>Please tell me we are not going to have to read hundreds of these
>advertisements this fall.  PLEASE!
>de KN5H  not KN5S
>PS> Prior to the SAC contest, I read at least 4 ads for 'please work me in
>the contest.'  Those guys didnt get a Q from me. Neither will this group.

It seems like kind of a useless statement anyway. If they are in the 
CONTEST, then everyone else in it would want to work them anyway.

Zack W9SZ


>From apmeyer at ix.netcom.com (ALEX A.P. MEYER)  Mon Sep 23 23:37:32 1996
From: apmeyer at ix.netcom.com (ALEX A.P. MEYER) (ALEX A.P. MEYER)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 15:37:32 -0700
Subject: KD7P's E-Maill ADRESS?
Message-ID: <199609232237.PAA07034 at dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com>


'73 ES DX................WB6AFJ...............ALEX.........

>From steve at g4uol.demon.co.uk (Steve Muster)  Sun Sep 22 20:01:03 1996
From: steve at g4uol.demon.co.uk (Steve Muster) (Steve Muster)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 20:01:03 +0100
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <kaihQBAvzYRyEwcl at g4uol.demon.co.uk>

73 Steve Muster  g4uol/gd4uol

Welcome to the Home Page of GD4UOL http://www.g4uol.demon.co.uk
Please visit my new web site and let me know how to improve it !

>From ppvvpp at mixcom.com (Gary Sutcliffe)  Tue Sep 24 00:00:53 1996
From: ppvvpp at mixcom.com (Gary Sutcliffe) (Gary Sutcliffe)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 18:00:53 -0500
Subject: Who has the antenna farm near Eau Claire?
Message-ID: <199609232300.SAA06968 at mixcom.mixcom.com>

At 12:43 PM 9/23/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Anybody near Eau Claire, Wi. know who the contester / dxer is who has
>that most impressive antenna farm visible from I-94 southeast of town?
>My curiosity is aroused.

That is W0AIH/W0UC.  W0AIH is for HF contesting, W0UC does the VHF/UHF
contesting.  They had an open house there in late July, so I stopped by.
There are 42 towers on the property.  Multiple antennas on just about every
band from 160M to about 5GHz.  It is most impressive. I would guess that
most people driving by assume its a government installation of some sort.

Gary Sutcliffe,  W9XT          Unified Microsystems
ppvvpp at mixcom.com              PO Box 133 Slinger, WI 53086
http://www.qth.com/w9xt     414-644-9036

>From desmith at telalink.net (Doug Smith)  Tue Sep 24 00:40:23 1996
From: desmith at telalink.net (Doug Smith) (Doug Smith)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 18:40:23 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: J7 in CQ WW RTTY - isnt there a rule?
Message-ID: <199609232340.SAA15851 at eve.telalink.net>

At 05:36 PM 9/23/96 -0500, you wrote:
>>>The PA team currently active as J79BP,RC,QA,WP from Dominica in the
>>Isnt there a rule that prohibits soliciting QSOs for a contest?

I always thought that prohibited non-radio solicitation *during* the
contest.  Solicitation *before* the contest has certainly been around, and
popular (though not necessarily on the Internet) for a long time, and I
don't remember any past ethical concerns about it.  

That said, posting such things on *this* reflector does seem a waste of
bandwidth.  It would seem appropriate for the DX reflector, for the benefit
of those who might need J7..

73 DOug
Douglas E. Smith W9WI/4		  desmith at Telalink.Net
1385 Old Clarksville Pike	  72777.3143 at compuserve.com
Pleasant View, TN 37146-8098

>From km9p at contesting.com (Bill Fisher, KM9P)  Tue Sep 24 00:49:08 1996
From: km9p at contesting.com (Bill Fisher, KM9P) (Bill Fisher, KM9P)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 19:49:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Ferrite question
Message-ID: <199609232349.TAA15275 at paris.akorn.net>

Having a good deal of RF coming back in to the shack on 80M.  Lighting up
some boxes, sometimes messing with the computer, etc.  I need to stick some
ferrite around the rotor cables and some 4 conductor 14g house wire I use
for controlling the antenna relays on the tower.  

Question:  What do I order when I call Amidon?  What do I ask for?  Please
dont tell me about the snap jobs you can buy at Radio Shack.  We all know
about them... over priced and in my experience rarely effective.  


Bill, KM9P
| Contesting Online... The ultimate           |
| source of ham radio contest information     |       
| http://www.contesting.com                   |

>From km9p at contesting.com (Bill Fisher, KM9P)  Tue Sep 24 00:49:10 1996
From: km9p at contesting.com (Bill Fisher, KM9P) (Bill Fisher, KM9P)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 19:49:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Wire 4-square summary
Message-ID: <199609232349.TAA15278 at paris.akorn.net>

First of all there is a neat little article on the YCCC web site that K1KI
wrote.  It's not as complete (as I understand it) as the article coming out
in the NCJ written by Tom and Jack (W1WEF).  The YCCC web site is
www.yccc.org and look for something like original articles.

I've begun my installation.  Had some help this weekend digging holes and
throwing rope in to trees.  Looks like my verticals will not be perfectly
vertical, but Tom seemed to think not such a big deal.  When I modelled a 25
degree inward sloping ground mounted 4-square it didn't reduce the F/B, just
moved it up in frequency.  Still, the worst case according to my model was
20db of F/B at the bottom end of the band and a very nice pattern.  We'll
see how it works in a month.

I bought some chokes for the 4-square btw... the teflon coax/bead jobs.  I'm
gonna have 3 radials initially.  I'll tune the radials per W0UN's suggestion
to tune two of them as if they were a dipole through an SWR analyzer.  My
plan is to have two radials running parrallel with a line drawn between the
next two closest verticals and a 3rd running directly away from the center
of the tower that supports the 4-square.  This 3rd radial will be about 40
to 50' off the ground at the ends, due to the severe slope of the hill at my
place.  I'll make the 3rd radial the same length as the first two tuned
radials.  Oh... the feedpoint of the verticals will be about 8' or 9' off
the ground.  Jim Miller (Comtek) pointed out on the phone that it is
important to keep the feedpoints level.  This is virtually impossible in my
situation and I'll just have to see what happens.  The differnence should
not be too much.  I'm using a Comtek box I bought from N4RJ for the phase

Tom, K1KI, pointed out that you MUST detune the other verticals when tuning
one.  Do this with a clip lead from the radials to the vertical.  

That's all from me!


   I've been a 4 vertical array utilyzer (80 & 40) for very many years
  (1982-1994) at my contest site (IR4T).

    Take in account that I had vertical DIPOLES and not ground planes,
  but a vertical dipole (or slooping) is equivalent (or better) to an
  elevated radial ground plane antenna.
  It is anyway improper to call "ground plane" an antenna composed by
  a quarter wave vertical radiator and with an elevated (& resonant) 
    The trick to elevate radials is useful to make efficient a vertical
  radiator where it is not possible to have enough space for the dipole
  missing half or for an extensive set of radials (not obligatory reso-
  nant) over the ground.

     The following notes are the real report of what happened:

  1) Best Height seemed to be that with dipoles bottom edge 1/8 wave from
     ground. Elevating more the antennas (tried up to 58 meters with the 
     center of the dipoles), brought to have a poorer DX antenna.
  2) Different configurations were tried, but the best was the phased one
     called " Diamond Array ", (square) with .25 lambda sides.
  3) This configuration was broad enough in frequency to cover the entire 
     band,SSB and CW, without any tuning or trimming of cables & elements.
  4) The F/B on the phased array (about 12 DB) was always better than F/S,
     never excessing a 10 DB limit (at 90x direction).
  5) The side dipoles were useful to keep a symmetrical configuration
     good for direction switching, but their contribution to the gain and
     pattern was minimal, making us asking if it is worth to "give" to each 
     of them a quarter of our power. A well made phased array of only 2 
     antennas, infact, can work more or less the same good.
  6) Stack of 2 el. (vertical) yagi (one driven, the other as a refl.)
     gave much more F/S but was unpractical for switching, narrower in
     band, and required different tuning of reflectors for SSB/CW.
  7) One fed dipole and 3 reflectors (not feeded) was the easiest to
     arrange but offered less gain and narrower band. It was impossible
     if tuned for SSB, to "tune" unfeeded reflectors only by lenghtening
     the "open end" cables, there was to lenghten element.
  8) All the arrays were able to receive signals arriving at very low 
     angles, unuseful for 80m DXing, but perfect to catch all the local
     "man made" noise.
  9) 99% of the times the noise level on the vertical array was so high
     that an horizontal dipole, only 1/4 wave from ground, was already 
     a better receiving antenna. May be this is not the same (I'm anyway 
     doubtful) at higher latitudes were band noise is less than here.

    That's all I can remember.

    My very personal opinion is that a vertical antenna brings You to 
    have a low cost, reasonably efficient transmitting antenna. 
    I haven't experienced such a terrible gain with vertical arrays,
    may be the gain was not at the proper angles.
    Moreover, if two verticals can have already 4 DB of gain, does it
    worth to get crazy for one more DB with complicated systems ?
    On 80m, an horizontal antenna having only 3DB of gain, but placed 
    at 1/2 wave from ground, gives now to me MUCH more gain, at useful
    DX angles.

    73s de Mauri, one of IR4T


I have had great results with a wire  80M 4-square.  Mine is suspended in
available trees with the feedpoints at 12 feet.

Originally I used 4 radials on each element and had excellent results.  I
then went to 8 per element and now have 20 radials on each.  Since the jump
to 20 radials I noticed a slight decrease in bandwidth and improved
performance on real long haul stuff like JA.  Leads me to believe that 4
radials is not as efficient in terms of return currents as is generally
believed, at least with the feedpoints at this height.

I used #10 insulated wire for the vertical element and fabricated a feedpoint
assembly using a piece of pressure treated 1 x 4 and a piece of aluminum
plate with an SO239.  It makes a neat setup that is easy to add radials to.
 The entire antenna is isolated from ground and uses insulated wire for all
radials and elements.  I recently added a bead balun to each feedpoint to
isolate the coax shield.  

With 100 watts output at the transmitter I measure .5 to .75 watts into the
dummy load within the 2 to 1 bandwidth.  The phasing network is from DX
Engineering and is the Collins design.

My guess is you will see a huge improvement over the Delta loop.  I used a
loop with the top at 85' and it was not in the same league as the 4-square.
 This antenna produces respectable gain and front to side/back.  In many
instances it hears better than the Beverages.  

Some suggestions:  Cut one antenna and erect it & prune for resonance, then
take it down and duplicate it exactly for the other three.  Measure the 75
ohm coax carefully with an analyzer to get it exact.  Then enjoy being loud
on 80 meters!


Jim W1UK


Hey Bill, I recently visited N4AR again and he is using wire 4 squares on
both 80 and 160.  He is using rope off the top of a tower in 4 directions
as the supports for the verticals.  He is using underground radials but I
believe that 4 elevated radials would work very well.  The cost is low if
you exclude the cost of the comtec box which  I think runs a little over
300.00.  Bill loves his and they work on both cw and phone without
making  any adjustments.  Just thought I send you what I know.  73 
Gary, WB4FLB


Hi Bill,
        A 4-square is a KILLER on 80m as you probably know. I am very
pleased with mine but the maintenance is a bit of a pain in the butt but
worth the aggravation. 
        My 15 & 20M tower is in a bit of a hole 300' from the house. I ran
4 ropes up the tower and out and installed a rope clip 48' from the tower.
I ran a thick plastic pulley down the rope so it would stop  when it got
to the rope clip. I have a rope running thru this pulley. This rope is used
to pull up the 66' vertical. BTW, the tower is 120' tall. I use 5 elevated
radials on each vertical. They are 66' long and slope from 10' down to as
low as 3' off the ground. I use a Comtek switchbox which is fb but pricey.
If I had money to burn I would do what K1EA did and put up tapering tubing
for the verticals. My ropes tend to break at the far end from rubbing
against tree branches once in a while. I use a short fishing pole with a
spin casting real to get the ropes over the trees (I'm quite accurate with
this setup). 
        The 4-square is a great system. Go for it Bill!

        73, Jeff  k1iu at ids.net

P.S. I've used a delta loop on 80. Works good but no comparison!


Hi Bill. Interested to read about you in NCJ, finally made it here by 
snail-mail about a week ago.
ON4UN is loud over here.  I also wanted to point out that his elements 
are vertical. Bill N4AR has vertical wires on his 4sq hung from a 
Rohn 25 tower. His elements are fed at ground level and he has
lots of radials. What ON4UN forgot to point out is that if the radials
are elevated you _must_ use chokes on the feedlines at the feed

Our 4sq at G0KPW is rebuilt each year in the week before CQ WW SSB
and Charlie K1XX comes over on the Monday and spends his week installing
wire radials! They are all at ground level so we don't have to be too careful
about exact radial lengths or preventing currents on the coax shields.
Our site is flat, and the antenna plays real well although at first we thought
wasn't working because we got poor front/back on Eu sigs, you need 
either ground wave signals or real DX to check out the directivity.

I don't know if a 4sq will work at its best on your hilltop location, you might
find that a 2el wire quad array with switched feed would be as good. KC1XX 
and W3LPL put monster signals into Eu on 80.

Dave G4BUO



I've checked out your web page a while back, and your station looks very 

I've recently begun setting up a station near Seattle, and already have 
4-squares running on 20m and 40m, with the 80/75m 4 square partially 
complete.    Later, I'll add a 3 element 160m array (one 160m element is 
under test now).  All radials are elevated.  The vertical elements are all 
"based" on HyGain 18-V verticals, which were selected based on the 
(previous) $50 pricetag (I bought 24!).  For 40m and 80/75m, I've modified 
the 18-V's to add additional strength and length and use a top hat for 
loading as required.   In designing the arrays,  I've read all the available 
articles and ON4UN's book regarding 4-squares and top hat loading.  I also 
used a homebrew array analysis program to select/analyze the appropriate 
element spacing.  (My 1.3 acre lot has numerous trees up to 100 feet or so 
tall.)  I may eventually write some articles on these arrays after I finish 
building and testing.  Based on my experience thus far, I can provide the 
following advice (with usual caveats about your mileage, watts per km, etc.) 
regarding implications for "wire" 4-squares:

(1)  The RadioWorks B1-4K 1:1 current baluns provide exceptional isolation 
and don't have eye bolt connections which can loosen.  They don't provide an 
internal DC short and thus are easy to install for phased array applications 
where one needs to be sure which terminal is the "hot" side vs. the "shield" 
side.  These baluns provide over 3K ohm isolation at 80m, are rated to 
handle 4 kW, and have good VSWR.

(2) I recommend 2 to 4 radials per element, and according to many references 
one should try to individually tune each one if each is a quarter-wave long. 
 In my case, I didn't do that since I intentionally made each vertical 
element about 0.28 wavelength long, which according to the Moxon articles 
should make the "balancing" of currents on each radial less of an issue.  To 
tune the feedpoint of each element to 50 ohms, I  sloped the ends of the 
radials toward the ground as required.  The reason for 2-4 radials is to 
obtain a close-to-omni pattern with high efficiency for each vertical 
element.  I checked this before connecting the elements into an array.  My 
reference receiver antenna was a tried-and-true R7 vertical for 40m and 20m. 

(3) I bought the Comtek hybrids and RG11 phasing lines for 80m, 40m, and 
20m, and have installed only the 20m and 40m ones so far.  The systems work 
very FB, with low VSWR and low dummy load power across the bands of 
interest.  The F/B and F/S definitely meet my expectations.

(4) Since the F/B and F/S performance of the arrays is highly dependent on 
having the spacing of the vertical radiating elements uniform from 
element-to-element, I suggest that you try to use as-vertical-as-possible 
elements (especially for the lower 45 foot or so of each vertical element on 
80m which is the main radiating portion).  If this is not possible, slope 
them "inward" or "outward" very slightly (your option) such that the array 
is truly symmetrical (when viewed from any azimuthal direction).  The 
feedpoint spacing between adjacent elements should be about 90 degrees 
(492/f in feet/MHz).

(5) The ON4UN article in CQ-CONTEST Sept. '96 suggests it's possible to have 
the feedpoint of each element near ground level yet elevate the main portion 
of the radials above this height with multiple supports (e.g., TV masts, 
trees, etc.).  I may try this as well on 160m and maybe 80m.  My 20m array 
at present uses elevated feedlines (feedlines are horizontal from each 
element feedpoint to the hybrid at about 8 feet above ground) with a 
physical spacing from element-to-element of slightly greater than 90 
degrees.  My 40m array uses feedlines at about 8 feet above ground at the 
element feedpoints but the remainder of the feedlines slope down to ground 
level, and the hybrid is at ground level.  In order to do this, of course I 
had to use a smaller physical spacing (<90 degrees - given the need to 
maintain the exactly 90 degree coax lengths) which reduces gain very 

(6)  I use #14 solid wire for my element top hats and #12 stranded for the 
radials.  My 40m array with two radials has the radials in-line with one 
another at right angles to the feedlines.  It's important to keep the 
radials isolated from the feedlines, and I run them at right angles to the 
feedline to do this.  On 20m, I currently have three radials which again are 
very well physically isolated from the feedlines.  One 20m radial runs 
parallel to the feedline (in the opposite direction) and the remaining two 
radials are in-line with one another and run perpendicular to the feedline.

(7) Per ON4UN's articles, avoid RF grounding the elements near the 
feedpoint.  Also, ON4UN's approach of plowing in lots of long ground-mounted 
radials under the 4-square to help establish the far-field elevation plane 
pattern would probably help.

(8) Years ago in Ham Radio magazine, a VE wrote an article on vertical 
half-wave sleeve dipoles, with feedpoint at about 0.2 wavelength above 
ground to optimize the effect of ground on per-element gain.  Four of those 
half-wave tall elements would proably work like a BOMB in a 4-square.  Maybe 
you can come up with a way to support four nearly-vertical wire dipoles and 
give this a shot!   Again, I suggest 90 degree physical spacing.  If you 
can't quite get the feedpoints to 60 feet elevation or so, you could 
probably get it to work well enough by having the feedpoints at about 40 
feet and the last 25 feet or so horizontal and elevated at 20 feet above 
ground.  Perhaps the horizontal portion would best have two wires aligned in 
opposite directions (sort of a "bottom hat") to minimize radiation from the 
horizontal section.

(9) The close-spaced 4-square arrangement with four quarter-wave sloping 
vertical elements which ON4UN shows on page 11-62 of the 2nd edition of his 
low-band DX-ing book, with four 34.5 foot phasing lines clearly offers less 
gain (almost 3 dB per ON4UN) than with full-size 90 degree 75 ohm feedlines. 
 Therefore, I'd suggest the "basic" 90 degree element spacing.  Also, ON4UN 
points out that the 75 ohm cables give you less "dumped" power into the 
dummy load.

(10)  I use the Tucker T-250 dummy load which can supposedly take 150 watts 
My arrays on 40m and 20m have less than 6 watts "dumped" (usually much 
less!) for 90 watts into the array.

I've noticed (as "warned" by the Comtek instructions) on numerous occasions 
that the gain-over-R7 and the F/B and F/S are a strong function of radiation 
angle-of-arrival.  A two or three element horizontal or inverted-vee wire 
beam for closer-in stateside QSO's would probably be a nice addition for me 
 - I don't have any towers and beams up at present.

Another recent idea which I plan to pursue is making the 40m 4-square 
elements also resonant on 30m, by adding two more radials.  The hybrid seems 
very broadband and I see some F/B and F/S now on 30m even with elements 
which only tune 40m!  Similarly, I'll add two more radials on the 20m 
elements to also tune 17m since I also see F/B and F/S now on 17m even with 
elements which only tune 20m!

73 and Best of Luck,
 -Paul     W9 Poor Loser
paul.lemson at attws.com


| Contesting Online... The ultimate           |
| source of ham radio contest information     |       
| http://www.contesting.com                   |

>From w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths)  Mon Sep 23 22:16:51 1996
From: w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 14:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 40M Yagi comparisons
Message-ID: <199609232116.OAA22496 at desiree.teleport.com>

>Yet, one mystery remains.
>Why does every contesting ham in the known universe use a Cushcraft 40-2CD
>40M Yagi?

>So I solicit your collective wisdom and experience for input and enlightenment:
>Have you had any experience with commercial 40M Yagis besides the
>Cushcraft? It certainly seems to be the standard, and strengthened a la
>W6QHS, is reputed to be a durable antenna. How DOES it stack up,
>performance-wise? I understand from anecdotal testimony that the KLM 40M
>Yagis are not robust and often require major seasonal maintenance. Hygain
>has the Discovery 7-1 (dipole), 7-2 (2el), and 7-3 (3el) 40M antennas in
>their literature, but I have never heard of any amateur using one, nor read
>any independent reports about their performance or reliability. Given
>Hygain's reputation and track record with their other antennas this seems
>very unusual to me; does it have some dark, secret weakness? I am seeing
>some accounts of the Force 12 monoband 40M Yagis; they would seem
>attractive because of their weight and wind load, if they have the long
>term reliability and if their b/w and gain claims are not (perish the
>thought!) out of line with physical realities. How about other

Though I am not very active in operating contests anymore, I have a 3
element HyGain Discoverer up.  I has been up at 115 feet for about 10 years
now and I have never taken it down for maintenance.  It still works like it
did the day I put it up.  It replaced an older HyGain 402BA which I used for
about 20 years and was used when I got it.  (I still have it in storage!)
Like all short 40 meter beams, it is narrow banded and you have to decide
whether to optimize it on cw or phone.  I chose cw and it acts like a dipole
on phone.  I am not disappointed when I consider the alternative (full size

Right now, it does need a little work.  It seems one of the boom bolts is
working its way out and has about 1/4 inch to go.  Of course I can't reach
it from the tower and will have to at least take the beam loose from the
mast and bring it in where I can reach it.  I used the standard HyGain
hardware.  Next time I will used locking nuts or double nut the boom bolts.
There does not seem to be any way to use a bolt, lock washer, and single nut
and get the whole thing tight enough to stay put without crushing the boom.

So, bottom line, I like the 3 element version of the HyGain Discoverer and I
have no idea why it isn't more popular.

Stan  w7ni at teleport.com

>From wrt at eskimo.com (Bill Turner)  Tue Sep 24 08:17:42 1996
From: wrt at eskimo.com (Bill Turner) (Bill Turner)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 07:17:42 GMT
Subject: Mail tracking
References: <199609212217.PAA03783 at desiree.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <32478a9e.4293998 at mail.eskimo.com>

On Sat, 21 Sep 1996 15:17:18 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

>If you sent in your vanity list via USPS express mail, enter the number on
>your receipt into the following page:
>You should get the info you have been sleepless over.
>                        Craig- N7ENU
I tried it and it worked - my package was delivered at 11:00am on the 21st.
Now I will be sleepless wondering if it's true that Saturday counts the same
as Monday, or will it be returned as too early.... 

73, Bill W7LZP
wrt at eskimo.com

>From w5kft at nts-online.net (Bryan Edwards)  Tue Sep 24 01:23:20 1996
From: w5kft at nts-online.net (Bryan Edwards) (Bryan Edwards)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 19:23:20 -0500
Subject: W5 DX BASH Oct 5-6 Info Update
Message-ID: <199609240023.TAA20608 at home.nts-online.net>

        Only two weeks until the annual W5 DX BASH at Lake 
Buchanan near Austin.  Make your plans now to come join us
for this FUN weekend with other DX'ers, Contesters, and 
VHF'ers.  We have just found out that DF4TD of the Bavarian
Contest Club and many others will be attending the BASH.

        For full details on the BASH, check the homepage at
www.dxer.org/w5bash.html   This will give you all the info 
on the BASH.  

        If you have questions, contact me via email and I 
will be glad to help.


Bryan  W5KFT

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list