[CQ-Contest] Re: SS CW Year
sawyered at earthlink.net
sawyered at earthlink.net
Mon Dec 9 10:43:51 EST 2002
Great Data on 1986/87 vs 2002 check info (year first licensed). The data
strongly suggest that a large number of the SS contesters in 2002 were the
same very people as were in the 1986/87 contest. Since the 2002 contest was
15 years later, those same people are 15 years older. Conclusion, contesters
are getting older.
In fact, you could conclude that the current growth in contesting may again be
the same contest bubble group nearing retirement and having more free time,
rather than new people getting into contesting (at least for SS).
I love contesting, and I'm 40 (check is 76 for me) but I don't see a lot of
young contesters out there, especially in the US (more so in EU). I challenge
us to pick a contest (lets pick one here on Contesting.com, I'll propose the
North American QSO party SSB for starters) and resolve that each and every one
of us will go Multi-Single and make sure we have at least one new contester
(hopefully under 30 but any newbie will do) with us for part of the contest.
What do you say guys (and a few gals)? It'd be fun and novel and just what
contesting needs as the sunspots start dropping and a few of us get to old to
contest as agressively any more.
Comments??
Ed N1UR
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:05:08 -0500 cq-contest-request at contesting.com wrote:
> Send CQ-Contest mailing list submissions to
> cq-contest at contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide
> Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> or, via email, send a message with subject or
> body 'help' to
> cq-contest-request at contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> cq-contest-admin at contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so
> it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of CQ-Contest digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Sectional Problems. de VY1JIA (J. Allen)
> 2. Propagation? (Tomas)
> 3. Topband at contesting.com (Paul D. Schrader)
> 4. Re: SS CW YEAR (Nat Heatwole)
> 5. Re: SS CW YEAR (Doug Smith W9WI)
> 6. Re: DXHPDS contribution (Leigh S. Jones)
> 7. Re: Misleading Calls (Marijan Miletic,
> S56A)
> 8. Re: Misleading callsigns (Doug McDuff)
> 9. Canadian "sections" (Dave)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Reply-To: "J. Allen"
> From: "J. Allen"
> To:
> Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 20:18:25 -0000
> Organization: Eagle's Nest Enterprises
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Sectional Problems. de
> VY1JIA
>
> Be careful what you wish for... You may just
> get it
>
> In my original e-mail and the follow-up with a
> representative in RAC and a
> rep in ARRL, the wrote only that YT, NU and NT
> (or NWT if they prefer)
> should ALL be equally accepted by the contest
> rules for the section which
> ARRL calls NWT.
>
> The reasons for not separating, YT/NU/NT are
> obvious if anyone wants to
> continue getting clean sweep cups... There
> simply are not enough ACTIVE
> contest operators in these areas to merit three
> separate sections.
>
> Perhaps there are in MAR, but I would suggest
> that it still be kept as a
> single section, and that the software on ARRL's
> end can easily be adjusted
> to accommodate standard two letter postal
> abbreviations or similar from each
> political entity, like accepting YT, NU, and
> NT, equally from us in the
> north.
>
> I say this again because it is very
> important... Please, for YOUR sakes, if
> anything, press ARRL and/or RAC to keep
> YT/NU/NT together, and just accept
> individual names equally.
>
> Remember... For many contests, I have been the
> only one on from our section
> and as a result, I miss the sweep. Bottom
> line... If I cannot find another
> YT/NU/NT station from up here, the difficulty
> of finding that last section
> for the general SS ops can only be imagined.
>
> If you choose to support us in this, do it in
> such a way that it does not
> destroy a good contest. Let's just go with the
> simplest solution. Let
> software and contest rules be user friendly.
>
> Sincerely,
> J.
> VY1JA
> .
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> From: Tomas
> To: CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 16:08:09 -0800
> Reply-To: nw7us at hfradio.org
> Organization: http://hfradio.org
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Propagation?
>
> Hi,
>
> I am exploring the difference between solar
> data (the "Numbers") and the real
> world (as subjective as that is). With that
> aim, I would like to ask you a few
> questions:
>
> 1) Do you think we've had unusually GOOD
> conditions this fall on HF?
>
> 2) Do you think we've had dismal conditions on
> MW and LW?
>
> 3) How do you rate conditions on MW, low HF,
> high HF, and VHF since the summer
> season until now?
>
> Thanks,
>
> 73 de Tomas, NW7US // AAR0JA
> --
> : Propagation Editor, CQ/PopComm Magazines -
> Member, USArmy MARS :
> : http://prop.hfradio.org : Brinnon,
> Washington 122.93W 47.67N :
> : A creator of solutions :
> http://accessnow.com : Perl Rules! :
> : 10x56526 - FISTS 7055 - FISTS NW 57 -
> http://hfradio.org/barsc :
> : A.R.Lighthouse Society 144 -- CW, SSB, RTTY,
> AMTOR, DX-Hunting :
>
>
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 19:26:30 -0500
> To: CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> From: "Paul D. Schrader"
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Topband at contesting.com
>
> Dave,
>
> The QST announcement on page 114 of the
> November 2002 issue
> says 160meters at arrl.org. Is that wrong also
> since it is plural, not 160meter?
> Anyway I can't get it to work.
>
> 73
>
> Paul N4XM
>
> At 01:29 PM 12/8/02 -0500, you wrote:
> >Beware - there's a bug in the rules on
> www.arrl.org. The text
> >gives the address for logs as
> 160meter at arrl.org but if you
> >pick up the hyperlink, the log goes instead to
> the address for
> >the 10 meter contest, and the Robot quite
> rightly rejects it.
> >
> >I should have simply typed in the address
> rather than relied on
> >the 'technology' of the hyperlink ;-)
> >
> >Dave G4BUO
> >_______________________________________________
> >CQ-Contest mailing list
> >CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> From: "Nat Heatwole"
> To: "Richard Zalewski"
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SS CW YEAR
> Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 19:35:52 -0500
>
> > Gee, I thought I said that it does not mean
> too much without previous
> years
> > data
>
> Right. I was just noting that your conclusion
> that this is "Not a good
> sign!" is not necessarilly the case.
>
> 73, Nat, WZ3AR
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 20:59:45 -0600
> From: Doug Smith W9WI
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Reply-To: w9wi at w9wi.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Re: SS CW YEAR
>
> OK, I've been threatening (to myself) to do
> this, and finally have...
>
> Managed to dig out two old paper SS logs. My
> educated guess is that they're
> 1986 and 1987 CW SS. (the newest check in both
> logs is 1985. One is
> definitely a CW log and the other has over 500
> QSOs - I don't think I ever
> made that many on phone in the 1980s.)
>
> There's a bit of statistical analysis and a few
> charts on
> http://www.w9wi.com/articles/sschecks.htm .
> Take it for what it's worth.
>
> To address one question brought up here.. the
> average check in both earlier
> logs is in 1962. The average check in my log
> from this fall's CW SS is in
> 1966.
> --
> Doug Smith W9WI
> Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
> http://www.w9wi.com
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 6
> From: "Leigh S. Jones"
> To:
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] DXHPDS contribution
> Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 19:09:32 -0800
> Organization: Leigh and Krista Jones
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 8:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] DXHPDS contribution
>
>
> >
> > Okay - I'll bite. What's DXHPDS?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Steve K7LXC
>
> That's "DX Hoggery and Poetry Depreciation
> Society". Years ago this
> was a
> regular theme in the DX column of QST Magazine
> as edited by W9BRD. It
> actually was a sort of a staple of the ham
> radio literature of the
> day. You'd
> probably remember it from my description, since
> you are even more of
> an
> old timer than I am...
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 7
> From: "Marijan Miletic, S56A"
> To:
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 03:23:51 -0000
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Re: Misleading Calls
>
> Once upon a time, we didn't know where exactly
> VP8 or FR5 are but then FCC
> made it free for all 1M+ USA hams.
>
> 73 & Season greetings de Mario, S56A, S5M,
> NH7/N1YU, K1B, W6B...
>
>
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts
> ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 04:19:25 +0000
> To: "Mike Gilmer, N2MG" ,
> From: Doug McDuff
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Misleading callsigns
>
> At 12:48 12/8/02 -0500, Mike Gilmer, N2MG
> wrote:
> > > Once again, IF you work a KG4 with a 2
> letter suffix, such as KG4DX,
> > > it is GITMO!!!!
> > >
> > > If you work a KG4 with a 3 letter prefix,
> such as KG4XYZ, it is the
> > > 4th district of the
> > > USA.
> >
> >In general, yes, but assuming I've learned
> anything from this thread, a call
> >like KG4XYZ guarantees nothing about where he
> might be in the US - he might
> >be in W5...in fact, he might be on Guam or in
> Alaska and it follows he could
> >be in Guantanamo as well. ;-)
>
> Not likely, as Gitmo calls are not issued by
> the FCC but rather through the
> Navy. So, to legitimately operate from Gitmo,
> you should have a 2 letter
> suffix.
>
> 73, Doug W4OX & KG4OX
>
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 9
> From: "Dave"
> To:
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 01:04:34 -0500
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Canadian "sections"
>
> I want to offer a little clarification on the
> matter of
> Canadian "sections."
>
> As others have pointed out, "sections" are the
> geographic
> areas that are the basis of the ARRL and RAC
> field
> organisations. Currently in Canada, there are
> RAC sections
> for NL, MAR, QC, ON, MB, SK, AB and BC. There
> is no field
> organisation as such in YT, NT and NU, but
> there could be as
> soon as someone takes of the job of organising
> one or more.
> Despite the absence of any field organisation
> in these three
> territories, they are considered to be one
> "section" for the
> purposes of some ARRL contests (SS, 160m) as
> multipliers.
> In other contests, including some ARRL contests
> (DX, 10m),
> these three territories are each considered
> separate
> multipliers.
>
> Someone noted that YT is part of RAC's "Pacific
> Section."
> This is false. YT is bunched in with BC for
> the purposes of
> elections to RAC's Board of Directors, while NT
> and NU are
> bunched in with Alberta for that same purpose,
> but this has
> no relation to the "field organisation" or
> contest
> multipliers. In that same vein, Ontario is
> divided in two
> on RAC's board, but is only one "section" in
> the field
> organisation and for multipliers.
>
> "Sections" are one class of thing. The members
> of the RAC
> Board constitute another class of thing.
> Provinces and
> Territories, constitued parts of the Dominion
> of Canada, are
> yet another class of thing. Don't mix them up.
>
> Confusing? Sure, but there are bigger
> mysteries in life.
>
> Why is there no field organisation in Canada's
> arctic?
> There are only 100,000 people living in a land
> area of about
> 3.5 million square kilometres, which, for some
> of the more
> parochial readers here, is five time the size
> of Texas.
> There may be all of 200 hams in all that space.
> Think about
> those numbers: what proportion of the Amateur
> population
> gets involved in their local field
> organisation? Darned
> few. When they do, it's usually begins with a
> local net. A
> net covering such as vast area is anything but
> local,
> especially when the aurora is nearly always
> present to
> absorb your signal.
>
> In short, the YT/NT/NU "section" is a harmless
> fiction that
> serves only to make a very few contests more
> interesting.
> ARRL 's contest robot could accomodate the few
> logs they
> receive from good guys like J. VY1JA by
> accepting YT, NT and
> NU as legitimate identifiers for this
> non-existent
> "section." I bet it wouldn't take five minutes
> to fix that,
> less time that it took me to write this.
>
> Dave VE2ZP
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> End of CQ-Contest Digest
>
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list