V26B and club scores

[frenaye at pcnet.com]

--- On Sat, 28 Sep 1996 08:54:49 -0400  N3ADL at aol.com wrote:

>I want to put together a list of OPs who might be available to fill in for 
an absent member of "Team Antigua"(tm) V26B for 1997 and beyond.
	[stuff cut]
>The following are some things to think about BEFORE you reply.
	[stuff cut]
>(4) You must be willing to give your points to the TEAM.


	Hi Doug!

	I'm not sure I understand point #4 but if you mean that any 	
	additional operator must be willing to give "their portion" of the 
	score to the Frankford Radio Club, that won't work.  I've included a 
	copy of a message I received from K3EST in response to some 	
	questions we had about multi-op scores in CQWW and YCCC efforts.
	Bob's answer was not what I expected, nor what I had understood to 
	be the rules interpretation in the past.  Hope we're all on the same 
	playing field here...

	Interested in some YCCC involvement at V26B?  We had a couple of 
	people looking for DXpedition QTHs as of two weeks ago.
			
			73 Tom


Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 20:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: bob cox <k3est at netcom.com>
Subject: Hi
To: frenaye at pcnet.com

Hi Tom,

Yes I got your previous message OK.

The amt gg to a club = the % of club members in the total operators.

A club can claim ONLY club members %'s. Even if the other non-club 
members say "I don't care" only club members count for a club.

Nice to see you at WRTC!
Take care and let me know if you need anything else.

73
Bob, K3EST


--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: frenaye at pcnet.com    Internet: http://www.akorn.net/k1ki
Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box 386, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444


>From n5ia at juno.com (Milt Jensen)  Sat Sep 28 16:41:18 1996
From: n5ia at juno.com (Milt Jensen) (Milt Jensen)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 11:41:18 EDT
Subject: TopBand: Bonding Rohn Tower Sections
References: <960928131515_76065.3345_GHC9-1 at compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <19960928.153815.10278.0.N5IA at juno.com>

Ken,
	Don't make it mor difficult than it has to be.  Forget the
mechanical external connections.  I have done this for years, and it
works extremely well.  My current full size 1/4 wave groundplane (130'
over 67' isulator = total heigth of 197') is constructed of 25G and works
like a champ.
	When you are assembling the tower use a wire brush or emery cloth
on the male part of the tower legs (top end) to clean all the oxidation &
dirt etc.  For the female part (bottom end) use a battery cable clamp
cleaning brush or something similar that you can put in a drill motor.
	Then lightly coat both male and female parts with an electric
utility type of oxide inhibitor.  This comes in many brands and container
sizes.  The inhibitor has minute particles of metal mixed in, and will
provide the metal to metal contact.  The paste itself prevents the
ingress of water, dirt or oxygen.  I've been using it on electrical
connectors for 30 years, so it is a proven method of maintaining
continuity.
	Good luck, and let me know how things work out for you.

				73 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---


On 28 Sep 96 09:15:16 EDT Ken Claerbout <76065.3345 at compuserve.com>
writes:
>     I'm using some Rohn 25G tower as a vertical and was wondering
>if someone has a suggestion for making a good RF connection between
>the sections.  I would prefer not to rely on the leg bolts.
>
>				Thanks   Ken KE9A
>
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
>Submissions:              topband at contesting.com
>Administrative requests:  topband-REQUEST at contesting.com
>Sponsored by Akorn Access, Inc & KM9P
>

>From thompson at mindspring.com (David L. Thompson)  Sat Sep 28 16:33:53 1996
From: thompson at mindspring.com (David L. Thompson) (David L. Thompson)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 11:33:53 -0400
Subject: Catching cheaters, SOA/SO
Message-ID: <199609281621.MAA23337 at itchy.mindspring.com>

Contesters,

There are some things I have seen the past few weeks that bother me and as a
Contest Director
(CQ 160) feel need addressing.

Tom N2GQS had a nice title (see subject) to give me an excellent heading and
starter key to my concerns.

First, catching cheaters is not or should not be the main concern of contest
checking.  Contest checking is concerned with reporting scores on an
impersonal, treat all equal basis.   There will be cheaters and rest assured
most checkers will find you out sooner or later.  But to decide we are all
cheaters in  waiting speaks ill of contesting.   Log checkers need to check
each log for accuracy, but uncovering a cheater should be a act of discovery
not the end means.  A good log checker knows that there will be a certain
per cent of not in the log or logging (and now keying) errors, and no matter
how good they get...logging programs CAUSE errors.   Why can't WZ4F be in
Zone 4..Alabama is?   Why can't a logging program understand that AL7PT
sending WV is not KL7?   There are more and most of us know them well.

Assisted versus SO versus Multi Op.....I tend to believe the better single
ops find that using packet etc breaks their rhythm.   There is an art to
assisted and my hat is off to K3WW and others who master it.   Where packet
is useful is in multi op.  In 1988 several of us operated N4HOH as
M/S in the CQ WW SSB.   WE had one station working (we were to slow for
running) and one as a mult station.   Having one person pass the packet
spots to the mult station (and sometimes to the run station) we worked
enoght mults to score nearly 2 million points with just less than 1200 Q's.
We had the same number of 10 meter mults as the 10 meter ststeside winner
who set the record.    The VP2KC effort in 1979 would have been an ideal
place to use packet.   Val N4RJ had a great set up for passing mults to each
band and packet would have made it even greater!   Remember that now packet
can be from the internet
or using "Dx alert" that reads packet spots on voice (listen to 147.51 when
near Atlanta).      I saw a write up on a similar system for reading packet
in CW, too.   Packet and spotting is and will expand!    My attitude is that
a SO using something like the Dx alert probably will not keep up with
a better op, but I still feel that if found out the op should be
disqualified or restricted. 

Uniques also bug me and the contest I run started it all!   Don, N4IN found
that the best way to set a level playing field was to build a complete log
of all stations active and logged.  Those that appear in only one log are
deemed uniques.   Since I have only one band to worry about checking uniques
is much simpler than the CQ WW or the ARRL DX.   Many do turn out to be
busted calls (our computer keying leads to many of these, too).   I have 22
variations of XE2/WA7UQV and 10 are correct just different orders!   I have
a fuzzy logic program to review
unique calls to try and suggest what they could be..this is necessay for
both logs to try and keep contacts/mults.   I try and correct a call unless
too many factors are wrong rather than just booting it out.    I have
decided that just because its a uinque does not mean its wrong.

I have three  real gripes.   #1..why doen't everybody check their log before
they send it in.  There is no excuse to have KH6DX/M sending CA be in your
log as KH6 mult/points.  If you can't read the print or it swims..reprint
it!   #2  Make sure you summary sheet shows what the contest director needs
to list your score.   If points or DX mult is not shown...PUT those in!!!!
I tend to get mad and put those logs aside for strong review.   #3   Make
sure your dup list is all there.  I get lists that have gone off the printed
page or has some goofy order that is impossible to find.   I use the dup
list as my master call builder/base for computer cross-checking.

Finally, I feel that many of us forget that many still do not use computer
logging.  To ignore these
entries or try to list them as other than complete entries is wrong.   I get
several hand logs that are a joy to check each year.   The logs from Eastern
EU are 85% hand written (at least in the CQ 160).    Sure it would be great
to get 100% computer logs, but I do not see it happening for a number of
years.    The second gripe is that I do not believe full disclosure of all
the logs is good for contesting.   I will bypass a contest that puts the
entire log up on the web or ftp.   This has spilled over to the vanity
program as several told me they wanted to see the entire list of calls for
each applicant.    Big brother is too near already!  

Dave K4JRB 


>From hwardsil at wolfenet.com (Ward Silver)  Sat Sep 28 17:55:09 1996
From: hwardsil at wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) (Ward Silver)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 09:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Multiple-Choice Packet-in-Contests Quiz
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.960928094806.451C-100000 at gonzo.wolfenet.com>


If the crack team of WW judges has every indication of packet cheating,
then I don't believe that there should be much soul-searching required. 
The question is whether to simply DQ 'em or is there a middle ground that
might be effective?

I would send the offender a note to the effect that serious (and
unspecified) irregularities have been uncovered in the log.  If the
offender wishes to resubmit the log as SOA, great.  If not, it will be
DQ'ed and the offender banished for whatever the period is.  This
preserves the committee's authority to administer the rules as written,
gives the offender a way to save face in private, and will most likely
prevent a repeat.  All without public disgrace or slander.

Of course, you could also just "lose" the log, too ;-)

Don't change the rules, they're fine.

73, Ward N0AX