[CQ-Contest] Re: VO2RAC in RAC contest - Labrador
Brlecic, Zoran
zbrlecic at TORHOSP.TORONTO.ON.CA
Tue Dec 30 15:49:43 EST 1997
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------ =_NextPart_000_01BD19E9.9AB99590
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Garie: Your section "NL" is correct for the new ARRL section.
However, the rules for the RAC contests say that the abbreviation is
"NF." This is an inconsistency that should probably be corrected in
favor of the "NL" designation, which it seems to me would be more
inclusive of Labrador, but it requires the rules writers of RAC to
make
that change. I don't have any software for this contest, so it
doesn't
make a lot of difference unless you do have such software. You made
the
correct change insofar as ARRL section contests is concerned. There
are
other differences from ARRL sections in RAC contests. At least there
is
one: VE8 and VY1 are two separate multipliers in RAC contests.
Unfortunately I was unable to work the one VE8 I heard in the RAC
contest last Sunday. He seemed to be just answering CQs and didn't
answer mine. 73, John.
===================================================
Here's the story of Labrador: VO2 is Labrador, however, Labrador is
not a province itself, but a part of Newfoundland. In RAC contests,
multipliers are ten Canadian provinces and 2 territories (VY1 and
VE8). Therefore, VO2 is Zone 2, section NF. No inconsistency.
73 ..... Zoran VA3GW
------ =_NextPart_000_01BD19E9.9AB99590
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64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------ =_NextPart_000_01BD19E9.9AB99590--
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
>From wa2ujg at ccnn.net (Karl Sturtevant) Sat Feb 1 00:58:16 1997
From: wa2ujg at ccnn.net (Karl Sturtevant) (Karl Sturtevant)
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:58:16 -0500
Subject: CTY FILES
Message-ID: <199702010058.TAA18491 at ashley.ccnn.net>
Hello everyone,
what are the dates of the MOST RECENT cty files? I just unzipped and
found a date of 10-14-96.
TU
Jay,AA2IX
>From k1vr at juno.com (Fred Hopengarten) Sat Feb 1 05:16:24 1997
From: k1vr at juno.com (Fred Hopengarten) (Fred Hopengarten)
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 00:16:24 EST
Subject: Another 80 m question
References: <970131104857_304135240 at emout17.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970201.000725.5495.13.k1vr at juno.com>
From:
Fred Hopengarten, K1VR
Six Willarch Road * Lincoln, MA 01773-5105 * 617/259-0088
e-mail: k1vr at juno.com or k1vr at k1vr.jjm.com
Big antennas, high in the sky, are better than small ones, low.
On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 10:49:03 -0500 (EST) W8JITom at aol.com writes:
>In a message dated 97-01-31 07:36:06 EST, you (PY1CAS) write(s):
>
>Antenna's are the same way. It's fun to play around and form opinions,
>and to
>model antennas, but the only proof is in a measurement. Even feedpoint
>resistance means next to nothing in a complex resonant system. The
>only thing
>that matters is field strength, something rarely measured.
>
>>What intigrates me is the fact that you proved by numbers what
>>you state.
>
>In one case of an A-B test with only the radials changed, yes. But it
>is
>supported by a few other things.
>
>At WVNJ AM, when they went from six elevated radials to 60 test
>radials on
>the ground, field strength picked up almost 7 dB at some locations and
>5 dB
>average over the entire pattern.
>
>During measurements for Goodyear Aerospace, Carl Smith of Smith
>electronics
>concluded, by real FS measurement, a properly optimized small
>counterpoise
>system on the AM broadcast band was 7 dB down from a theoretically
>perfect
>ground system.
>
>As second hand information, N7CL posted some measurements made for the
>military at upper HF. The conclusion (using helicopters in flyovers
>for FS
>measurements) was small elevated systems were 5 to 6 dB down from a
>conventional system.
>
>One other Ham in PA actually made an A-B measurement of field strength
>on 160
>meters and concluded about the same thing. (Lucky guy had his college
>students help with the tests, hi)
K1VR: As I recall the presentation by Jim Breakall, WA3FET, a Professor
at Penn State, at the Dayton Hamvention, he confirmed his computer
modelling (which said that 4 raised radials could be equal to 120 buried
radials) by using a helicopter and flying around a transmitting antenna
to measure field strength. While not wishing to assert that I am in any
way expert in these matters,
that's what I remember from his paper.
>I know about a dozen people who have went from small elevated systems
>to
>medium to large conventional systems and strongly feel (but without FS
>measurements) the same thing. N8ATR was the latest to believe that.
>WA2IZL is
>another. N4SU another.
>
>>As an Engineer (production engineer) I need numbers and
>experimentations to
>>believe in something, just like you.
>
>My working life is spent measuring things to prove concepts. I have
>become
>sceptical of any claim provided without independent second source
>conformation, hi. Since I could find any data, I decided to make my
>own test.
>
>Throughout ALL of the elevated radial articles, all I find are NEC
>models or
>long esoteric data chains.
K1VR: I am introducing to the discussion the only real world testing of
which I am aware.
Direct A-B comparisons are totally lacking.
K1VR: As I recall it, this was true of the WA3FET work. But perhaps
K3LR, or someone else then present, can recall better than I.
>From merchant at silcom.com (Stephen Merchant) Sat Feb 1 08:44:53 1997
From: merchant at silcom.com (Stephen Merchant) (Stephen Merchant)
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 00:44:53 -0800
Subject: NAQP SSB E-Mail Logs Received
Message-ID: <2.2.16.19970201004523.1157234a at silcom.com>
As of 0600z, 01 Feb 97 I have received e-mail logs for the stations listed
below. If you have sent me a log and you don't see your call on the list,
send it again, please. Cutoff for log submission is February 18.
Thanks to Trey for the bandwidth -- we're working on a better way to do this
in the future.
73, Steve K6AW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K1NO
K1SD
KE1DO
KK1L
N2GA
N3IXR
NY3C
WA3HAE
WA3SES
K4MA
K4RO
KE4RHU
KS4XG
N4CW
N4GN
W4EF
WA4ZXA
WC4E
WO4O
K5NZ
K5OT
KG5U
N5KB
N5KO
N5LZ
W5ASP
K6GT
K6LL
VE6DGG
VE6JY
VE6TUR
W6EEN
KK7A
VE7CFD
K8BK
K8MR
N8TC
W8MJ
WA8OLD
K9MY
K9PW
K9WIE
KJ9C
KS9K
N9GG
N9ITX/7
W9RE
W9WI
AE0M
K0EJ
K0RC
WB0OLA
***END***
>From AD1C at tiac.net (Jim Reisert AD1C) Sat Feb 1 13:55:12 1997
From: AD1C at tiac.net (Jim Reisert AD1C) (Jim Reisert AD1C)
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 97 09:55:12 -0400
Subject: CTY FILES
Message-ID: <199702011456.JAA18872 at mailnfs0.tiac.net>
On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:58:16 -0500, Karl Sturtevant WA2UJG wrote:
> what are the dates of the MOST RECENT cty files? I just unzipped and
>found a date of 10-14-96.
Yes, those are the most recent. They can always be found at:
http://ve7tcp.ampr.org/Software/ct/ct-files.html
http://ve7tcp.ampr.org/ftp/software/ct/
The web page lists the file dates. I will attempt to keep it up-to-date.
There will be an update some time before ARRL CW. It will be announced on
the CT-USER, NA-USER and TRLOG reflectors, but *NOT* CQ-Contest.
73 - Jim AD1C
--
Jim Reisert <AD1C at tiac.net> http://www.tiac.net/users/ad1c/
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list