SOA vs SO

[george fremin iii]

>One solution would be to permit all to use packet. It would eliminate 
>the "is this guy cheating by using packet" question that keeps 
>popping up. And, it would answer the question "are the SO ops the 
>real macho men/champions they say they are."

Or who has the better packet network.

Ask K5NA (who has done some SOA) if he wants to
do that catagory from his new Texas qth.

-- 

George Fremin III
Austin, Texas C.K.U.   
The operator formerly known as WB5VZL
512/416-7010               
geoiii at bga.com

>From duerbusc at MO.NET (Joseph J. Duerbusch K0BX)  Fri Sep 27 21:13:02 1996
From: duerbusc at MO.NET (Joseph J. Duerbusch K0BX) (Joseph J. Duerbusch K0BX)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 15:13:02 -0500
Subject: SOA vs SO
References: <199609271829.OAA29343 at mail.voicenet.com>
Message-ID: <324C354E.26CF at mo.net>

SOA VS SO, I think that most people are still in the SO catagory.  Why? 
Look at Sept or OCT QST with the results of the ARRL DX Contest.  Here I
am SOA in Missouri Section low power.  I'm da winner! Only one that sent
in the logs!  Same with my buddy who won SOA Missouri High Power.

Why was I in SOA?  I was just playing in the contest.  My score was low
because I only operated a few hours.  Still, I try to sent in my logs in
each contest.  I used the packet spots and had a lot of fun playing with
the contest software that QSY'ed me all over the place.

Funny, all those guys that sent out those spots were not listed in SOA. 
I guess they had the receive spots turned off......

-- 
Joe Duerbusch K0BX St. Louis MO
jduerbusch at mdc.com at work
duerbusc at mo.net at home

http://www.qrz.com/cgi-bin/qrz_gifs?k0bx.gif

>From ah3c at burgoyne.com (PETER GRILLO)  Sat Sep 28 05:07:20 1996
From: ah3c at burgoyne.com (PETER GRILLO) (PETER GRILLO)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 22:07:20 -0600
Subject: CQWW CW 1995 results
Message-ID: <199609272229.QAA25571 at burgoyne.com>

Hi Bob, et.al (please excuese the bandwidth) -

Very nice summary in October CQ, indeed!  Interesting to note the score
reductions in the top ten summaries from the claimed scores gathered on the
Reflector.  The upcoming CQ Contest article summary should be enlightening.

Perhaps a comment on the tight Caribbean race is worth mentioning, with John
(K4BAI) squeaking ahead of Glenn (K6NA) and Wayne (N7NG).

It appears at first glance that two of the top ten DX single op scores had
about 5% deducted (mine being one of them).  There may have been an impact
on standing, particularly with the Caribbean scores.  It is amazing to me
that Ville (OH2MM), Jose (CT1BOH), John (K4BAI), and Glenn (K6NA)
consistently come out with less than 1% deducted.  Oliver (W6NV) should also
be mentioned here, and many others too difficult to identify in the pack (DX
side) based on the initial CQ writeup.

I did note, however, that a digit was missing on my 80 meter QSO total in
the breakdown (was that 650 instead of 50)?  Also, even though our club
(SCCC) won the club competition, is there a reason my score was not included
in the tally?  I thought it was clear that I was a member of the SCCC and
had declared this in my log summary.  This would make our team total
34,108,292 instead of 26,697,434.

Much has been devoted in the CQ Contest articles about accuracy and
efficiency in making QSO's to avoid the "uniques".  One aspect I would like
to see is some discussion about computer logging efficiency.  Being on the
DX end presents different problems than being on the domestic US end.
Having been on the DX end for the past 9 years, I would like to point out
some new problems...

First, is accuracy in typing.  Perhaps over 95% of the QSO's logged from a
DXpedition site are from answered CQ's (that other 5% is for quickly working
multipliers in search and pounce mode while sweeping the bands).  When a
typing mistake in the call is made by the operator, it depends a lot as to
how the configuration for the QSO is set up.  Many of us are using Tree's TR
program.  This program is so efficient that the entire exchange can be
completely logged simply by typing in the callsign.  This is done by using
the "Auto Call Terminate" function.  In the 1992 and 1995 contests I had the
curser set at the 4th letter because my typing speed is typically about 2
letters behind hearing the calling station's call sign when our speed is >30
WPM (typically 32-35 WPM).  With CT, two letters behind causes a major
"pregnant pause" if you have to continue typing before hitting the "enter"
key.  This causes confusion if the DX operator is too slow in typing and the
calling station decides to call again, since the pregnant pause was enough
to create the question, "did he come back to me?", by the calling station.
If he does call again, the DX station may be transmitting at the same time,
thus causing neither to be able to respond.  At this point it takes at least
twice the time to complete an exchange.  The key to successfully using the
"auto-call-terminate" technique is to train yourself to MAKE SURE YOU HEAR
THE ENTIRE CALL OF THE CALLING STATION before hitting the 4th letter of the
call.  Before the big contest I sit down for and hour or two at least twice
a week for a month or so and practice making QSO's using the
"auto-call-terminate" feature and also using my 19,000 call sign database
(captured from all the confirmed QSL cards of 1990).  This hones my response
time for being as accurate as possible in copying the entire call.  Tree's
practice program is another example of his forward thinking.  If you make an
error in copying the call he has a routine message that requires you to
repair your error.  The rate meter immediately reflects this and causes you
to work harder to get the call right the first time.  By the time I am ready
for the contest I feel confident enough to use the "auto-call-terminate"
feature.  Unfortunately, this feature can also work against you!!!!  You
MUST hear the ENTIRE call.  If the calling station sends his call in
error...then the usual problem of repeats will undoubtedly occur.  This is
not the worst problem.  What can really destroy a great effort is when you
start getting really tired during the fracas.  The mind cannot keep up with
the computer's precise command and control capability!  I was able to
analyze the results of my operations and found several instances where I had
cut off a letter or a character of a letter by typing the fourth letter just
a fraction ahead of hearing the entire call.  This happens because the
program is allowing you to type without sending until you type the fourth
letter...then all of a sudden the computer starts sending at the same time
that the calling station is just finishing sending the rest of his call!
There are at least 50 occasions in my log at C4A that created an incorrect
call sign because of this problem.  There were many instances during the
operating that I was alert enough to catch myself not hearing the entire
call, then requiring a repeat.

The bottom line of all this?  The "uniques" filtering process initiated by
the CQWW committee has my full support!  Through your diligent screening
process, the computer program that filters uniques from logs has caused me
to dig deep into my skill level to find out what is really wrong with some
of my operating.  I commend all of you for making the CQWW DX contests the
true test of operating skill!

Thanks for the hundreds (and probably thousands) of hours contributed by
each member of the committee.  Your efforts are an example of matching
leading edge technology toward a betterment of Amateur Radio Contesting!

73,  Pete  (ah3c at burgoyne.com)

AH3C