[CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Contest changes SANITY CHECK!

Tue Aug 31 19:08:27 EDT 1999

I received the message that follows my comments from Bill Kennamer 
and post it here with his permission.

IMHO, if accurate and thorough log checking is a good thing for 
contesting and a portion of the exchange makes that checking 
difficult, something IS broken.

If the exchange can be changed without altering the essential nature 
of the contest and without invalidating comparisons to the existing 
records it seems to me that it should be done.

Using ITU zone in the DX exchange would accomplish that. ITU zone 
would not significantly impact the length or complexity of the 
exchange and hence keep comparisons to previous records valid. 
And,most contest participants are already familiar with ITU zone from 
the IARU contest.

The key to making any change to the exchange work will be getting the 
word out, world wide, sufficiently before the contest so that all 
participants are prepared for the change.

73, Jimmy

>From: "Kennamer, Bill,  K5FUV" <bkennamer at arrl.org>
>To: Jimmy Weierich <kg2au at stny.rr.com>
>Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Contest changes SANITY CHECK!
>Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 08:53:38 -0400
>
>It's simple. Either the DX station changes his exchange during the contest,
>perhaps when he changes bands or the amplifier breaks, or enough people
>miscopy 100 as 10 or 1000 that we can't really be positive what the DX
>station sent every time.
>
>It would be far better to have either grid squares, ITU zones or even a
>serial number that changes every time, rather than the current situation.
>
>73
>
>Bill K5FUV
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jimmy Weierich [mailto:kg2au at stny.rr.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, August 28, 1999 11:24 AM
>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Contest changes SANITY CHECK!
>>
>> Thanks for the sanity check. Now, if someone involved with the log
>> checking process could tell us what there is about the current
>> exchange that makes log checking difficult we could begin to have a
>> meaningful discussion.
>>
>> 73, Jimmy
>
>
>>>From: "J.P. Kleinhaus" <w2xx at cloud9.net>
>>>To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>>>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Contest changes SANITY CHECK!
>>>Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 23:32:52 -0400
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Natan Huffman <force12e at lightlink.com>
>>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>>>> Date: Thursday, August 26, 1999 20:10
>>>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Contest changes
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know exactly who came up with the proposed changes to the =
>>>> ARRL DX Contest?  CAC, HQ???
>>>
>>> HOLD IT!!!!!
>>>
>>> There are NO "proposed changes" to the ARRL DX contest.
>>>
>>> What DOES exist is a study item for the CAC to examine POSSIBLE
>>> changes in order to make it easier to crosscheck logs for accuracy.
>>>
>>> Do I think this is necessary? No.  I don't believe that the contest,
>>> or contest exchange, should be buggered to make log checking easier.
>>> But please, don't make it seem as though any official change has been
>>> proposed as that just isn't true.
>>>
>>> 73, J.P. W2XX
>>>
>>> Vice Director, ARRL Hudson Division

Jimmy, KG2AU       <kg2au at stny.rr.com>

--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

>From K4RO Kirk Pickering <k4ro at k4ro.net>  Wed Dec  1 15:24:24 1999
From: K4RO Kirk Pickering <k4ro at k4ro.net> (K4RO Kirk Pickering)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 09:24:24 -0600 (CST)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] K4RO CQWW CW Story
Message-ID: <199912011524.JAA09482 at isd7.tdec.state.tn.us>

Just when I start to think I am figuring out how to contest, 
the CW SS and CQWW contests come around in November and reduce 
me to a humble sack of bumbling protoplasm.

I missed most of the 1998 CQWW CW due to a friend's wedding and
associated parties.  This year I was lucky to have the whole weekend
to myself.  In retrospect, I prepared for this CQWW CW contest with 
a pretty laissez-faire attitude.  I didn't make up my mind on which 
category to enter until the night before.  I considered trying a single 
band effort for the first time, but the lure of an all-band high-power 
workout was stronger.  I had been spending a lot of time on the air 
doing lots of CW ragchewing and DXing, and was glad to be enjoying such 
great conditions.  I didn't feel I had a prayer of winning anything in
the SO AB HP category, so I was just going to do this for "fun" and not 
kill myself over it.  I set a goal of 2 million points and 2000 QSO's,
which was about 50% better than I'd ever done.  This was my 3rd attempt
SOAB in the CQWW.

Now that the contest is over, I wish I had done a much better job of 
preparing for it, and had taken it more seriously.  As soon as I was 
in the chair, I wanted to go the distance.  I slept a couple of hours 
the first night, hoping that I could make it through Saturday and Sunday.  
There was just no way.  I honestly don't understand how some of you, even 
in fit condition, can operate 42-48 hours.  I'm going to have to train a 
whole lot harder if I ever want to really compete in the Single Operator 
category.  I am in awe of you folks who can go the entire distance.

Every time I operate the CQWW, I come away knowing that this is absolutely
THE contest.  There are so many decisions to be made in the SO AB category
that I am just humbled.  Especially this weekend when there were often
several bands open at once.  Where is the best rate?  Where are the needed
multipliers?  Can I break this pileup?  What's it worth?  Run EU or chase
JA double mult on 160?  Even with two radios going often, I still don't 
know where I'm supposed to be and when.  It's going to take lots more 
experience before I feel that I know how to operate this contest.  Maybe 
in 20 years I will know how to operate the CQWW, creeks not rising and all...

Conditions were just outstanding, especially on 10 meters, but also on 40 
meters on Saturday night.  I was surprised how loud I felt on 40 meters.  
I've never been able to run DX on 40 before, but people were actually 
answering my CQs!  I was using a new boom matching design, and running 
a full 1.0 kW.  That may have made the difference.  More likely it was 
just propagation, judging from some of the reports.  I've never worked 
this much DX on 40 meters from here, ever.  Sure wish I had a 40 meter
beam.  I may have to try building a 2 or 3 element wire array to EU...

Thank goodness for all of the eastern EU and former USSR CW operators.
Those guys are sharp and plentiful.  I'm getting a little bit better at
judging when running is possible, just from trying.  Was hoping for
some good 20m activity around 0900z, but it just didn't happen here.
Two hours sleep around 1000z.

Saturday was a blur of mostly rate.  I felt loud, and was usually walking
right through monster pileups and holding run frequencies with relative
ease.  Then at 1345Z the line noise began.  I fought through it for 
about 5 hours, then I had to take a break.

I noticed that running the stack configuration really made a difference 
when trying to run stations at times.  In the domestic contests, the
value of my stack is mainly in beaming two directions.  In DX contests,
the extra dB or two from the phased configuration seems to make a real
difference when running.

Highlights:

Terrific runs on 10 meters!

Broke one million points at 22:49, which was a good motivator.
At the 24 hour mark I was 1111 X 251  X 103 for 1,078,284 

Some great DX included  9M8YY, A45XR, VQ9IO, 9H3MH, V8A,
                        V73CW, HS0AC, XV7SW, E4/S53R, A61AJ
                        BD4ED, T32BE

My very last QSO was BY1DX for a double multiplier on 15!

Worked CN8WW on all 6 bands.  Fantastic signals & ears everywhere.
Great show folks!

Lowlights:

Sunday morning I was burnt and just not into it.  I'm going to have
to figure out how (or if) I can really handle the SOAB category...
My enthusiam picked up with the rate, so I need to remember to just
hang in there until EU comes booming in.

Never could get any real rate going on twenty meters.  DX signals
were usually very weak.  I actually did much better on 40 than 20 
which is very unusual from my station in a DX contest.  Especially 
considering I have no gain antennas on 40.  

The usual frequency battles.  Like when K4EA appeared on a frequency that 
I'd just completed SEVEN QSOs on, and began CQing like he'd been there the 
whole time.  With him at 30dB over 9 and me running a kW, I really doubt
that he didn't hear me.  I thought he was a better operator than that.

I guess we all have our lid moments.  I sure have mine, and certainly
squashed a few folks unintentionally as well.  However, if someone takes 
my frequency while I'm off trying to work a mult on the 2nd radio or other
VFO, it's theirs.  If I come back and someone has a run going, I don't
think it is appropriate to "re-claim" the frequency.  It's lost.  Go find
another one.  I was able to deal with most of the lids without too much 
anguish though.  It's all part of the contest. 

The CQWW is THE contest.  I hope I learn how to operate it someday.

Oh yes, one more comment...

#    #    ###   #######       #         #     #                   ###
#   #    #   #  #             #         #  #  #   ####   #    #   ###
#  #    #     # #             #         #  #  #  #    #  #    #   ###
###     #     # #####         #         #  #  #  #    #  #    #    #
#  #    #     # #       #     #         #  #  #  #    #  # ## #
#   #    #   #  #       #     #         #  #  #  #    #  ##  ##   ###
#    #    ###   #######  #####           ## ##    ####   #    #   ###

--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com