[CQ-Contest] Best QSOs per Hour on SSB and CW

AA4NC at aol.com AA4NC at aol.com
Fri Jun 29 13:25:01 EDT 2001

That's a good observation. I am still of the opinion that for most of us mere 
mortals, faster rates can be obtained logging on paper. The reason for this 
is that you can efficiently log partial calls from a pileup, then fill them 
in later. I remember "back in the day" it was not unusual to have 3-5 partial 
calls in the callsign fields waiting to be filled in. It is more efficient 
than having to complete the entire QSO like we must do with computer logging. 
Would I want to go back to that and have to deal with weeks of duping/fooling 
with paper logs? - NO! (I hear that N6KT is still doing it this way 

I just pulled out an old dusty pile of logsheets for one of my VP2E ARRL DX 
operations (1990). There are 10,455 (unduped) QSOs in the log. That's 
218/hour average for 48 hours (using 1 radio). I don't think we have done 
anywhere near that since we started carrying our laptops to the Caribbean...



In a message dated 6/29/01 2:16:10 AM GMT Daylight Time, nf1j at earthlink.net 

>  What still impresses me were some of the rates some people could put up
>  before the computer made it's ubiquitous presence in every contester's
>  shack.
>  I think it was around 1991 or 92 when Carl ran an average of 180 an hour 
>  46 hours in DX Phone, logging on paper...
>  And if there's ever a museum dedicated to contesting, it would have to
>  include some of K3ZO's famed monster-sized dupe sheets.
>  Doesn't make me a dinosaur, does it? Nyah. But think of what it would be
>  like if all the PC's in our shacks stopped working at 2358Z.
>  warren, NF1J/6

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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list