[CQ-Contest] Re: CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 23, Issue 91
Eddie
kc5ter at sbcglobal.net
Tue Nov 30 17:51:53 EST 2004
think this few lines right here pretty much sums it all up..... "Even
when I lose, I have
more satisfaction in knowing I fought the good fight than any box score
could
give me. In the mean time, I will sharpen my weapons and eagerly await the
next battle."................point being why bother changing the rules let
the chips fall where they may and let the better station win out. Guys im
just a tech i work alot of 2 meter side band right up against some really
big guns in my area and trust me i am the little guy on the block when it
comes to vhf contesting but i can still get right in there and tangle with
the big dogs and at times come out not fairy to darn badly at all grant it
vhf is a bit different beast than hf...but maybe not so much different. I
run a single 17b2 and 50 watts where as alot of guys around here run stacked
17s or even 4 17s and tons of power and low and behold i still manage to
work a few stations thier not hearing..when the vhf sweep stakes come around
i dont ask them to shut off thier amps or only use one 17 instead of all
four of them in order for me to stand a better chance.. i fight right in
there with them and hey i know what im up against.. and low and behold
sometimes even make the big dogs scratch there heads and say dang ..why
couldnt i work that guy this little guy is talking to...and 6 meters... let
me tell ya my 100 watts and single bazooka have busted many a pileup..righ
along side "joe big gun" thats running legal limit and stacked 7s at a
hundred feet....i know this to be true because the big guns have qso'ed with
me and ask "what the heck are u running there" and i tell them and they
just laugh and say well dang keep up the good work....point is why mess with
something that aint broke????
----- Original Message -----
From: <cq-contest-request at contesting.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 4:27 PM
Subject: CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 23, Issue 91
> 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-owner 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. Re: Stimulating Participation was: Limited Antenna Height
> Category (Kenneth E. Harker)
> 2. Re: Limited Antenna Height Category (PaulKB8N at aol.com)
> 3. Re: Stimulating Participation was: Limited Antenna Height
> Category (Richard DiDonna NN3W)
> 4. Re: Stimulating Participation was: Limited Antenna Height
> Category (Kenneth E. Harker)
> 5. Re: Limited Antenna Height Category (Russell Hill)
> 6. What SO2R has done to me... (Barry )
> 7. Re: TIC Ring Potentiometer Failure? (K4RO Kirk Pickering)
> 8. Re: Stimulating Participation was: Limited Antenna Height
> Category (Jim Smith)
> 9. Re: Stimulating Participation was: Limited Antenna Height
> Category (Pete Smith)
> 10. Re: Stimulating Participation was: Limited Antenna Height
> Category (Kenneth E. Harker)
> 11. Re: Stimulating Participation was: Limited Antenna Height
> Category (Ron Notarius)
> 12. Re: Anonymous/pseudonymous posts (Joe Contester)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:30:00 -0800
> From: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker at kenharker.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited
> Antenna Height Category
> To: CQ Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <20041130193000.GF10422 at kenharker.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:01:16PM -0500, Pete Smith wrote:
>
>> Doesn't mean it isn't still a good idea,
>> particularly
>> in the face of flat or declining participation in contests, which is why
>> I
>> have brought it up again.
>
> Can you back up that assertion that contest activity is "flat or
> declining"
> with data? On HF, it is exactly the opposite of my personal observation.
>
> --
> Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
> kenharker at kenharker.com
> http://www.kenharker.com/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:47:16 EST
> From: PaulKB8N at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Limited Antenna Height Category
> To: rdetweil at hotmail.com, rustyhill at earthlink.net,
> cq-contest at contesting.com
> Message-ID: <1d0.2d22f6f8.2ede2844 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Rusty,
>
> We all choose our lot in life. I chose a covenant restricted
> neighborhood
> because we were offered a house here at a much reduced price because the
> contractor so thoroughly screwed up our first house, which we were
> building in an
> unrestricted neighborhood.
>
> I don't want to drag politics into this, but there is sometimes a mindset
> that everything must be somehow equalized in order to make everyone feel
> good
> about themselves. I believe that there is very little equality in
> anything,
> but therein lies the opportunity for skill, determination and innovation.
>
> I am operating a two radio setup in my restricted neighborhood with wires
> at
> 30' height and so thin that most neighbors don't even know they're there,
> but I consider my station to be extremely competitive in the low power
> category. To say I'm operating from a hole is really true, my
> neighborhood is called
> Deer Hollow! Nonetheless, I've tweaked everything for maximum
> efficiency,
> and it is one rockin' little station. I've built enough agility into my
> station that I've called and worked a lot of new mults before the other
> guy has
> his beam turned on him.
>
> I don't need or want to be compared with someone simply because of a
> similar
> physical infrastruicture. I've chosen my battleground and my weapons,
> its
> up to me take on the Goliaths and sometimes win. Even when I lose, I
> have
> more satisfaction in knowing I fought the good fight than any box score
> could
> give me. In the mean time, I will sharpen my weapons and eagerly await
> the
> next battle.
>
> Paul, K5AF
>
> Paul Schaffenberger
> 210-493-6265
> 210-213-5914(M)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:51:56 -0500
> From: "Richard DiDonna NN3W" <NN3W at prodigy.net>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited
> Antenna Height Category
> To: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker at kenharker.com>, "CQ Contest"
> <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <AA-84FFEB9B433EDCAE5EA40BC9503334EC-ZZ at www7.prodigy.net>
>
>
> --- Original Message ---
> From: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker at kenharker.com>
> To: CQ Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation
> was: Limited Antenna Height Category
>
>>On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:01:16PM -0500, Pete Smith
> wrote:
>>
>>> Doesn't mean it isn't still a
> good idea, particularly
>>> in the face of flat or declining participation in
> contests, which is why I
>>> have brought it up again.
>>
>>Can you back up that assertion that contest activity
> is "flat or declining"
>>with data? On HF, it is exactly the opposite of my
> personal observation.
>>
> I think there is a perception that activity on 10
> meters has decreased significantly - and not due to
> the sunspot cycle. As the number of novices and techs
> decreases, I've noticed that the wild 10 meter QSO
> counts of the early-mid 90s have not really been
> matched today. You could spend most all day on 10 in
> the NAQP, CQP, and SS contests - racking up unique Qs
> from Novices and techs.
>
> Statistics show that the number of novice and tech-
> plus operators has dropped substantially in recent
> years. While some of them have graduated to the real
> HF allowable categories, many have either dropped out
> or remained on VHF bands.
>
> A review of some of the 3830 reports might give some
> indication of QSO trends. Of course, its hard to make
> exact comparisons since the advent of SO2R has pushed
> up overall QSO effectiveness.
>
> Perhaps an analysis of Field Day will give a guess as
> to overal QSO counts.
>
> Rich NN3W
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:08:38 -0800
> From: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker at kenharker.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited
> Antenna Height Category
> To: Richard DiDonna NN3W <NN3W at prodigy.net>
> Cc: CQ Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <20041130200837.GK10422 at kenharker.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 02:51:56PM -0500, Richard DiDonna NN3W wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>> From: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker at kenharker.com>
>> To: CQ Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation
>> was: Limited Antenna Height Category
>>
>> >On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:01:16PM -0500, Pete Smith
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Doesn't mean it isn't still a
>> good idea, particularly
>> >> in the face of flat or declining participation in
>> contests, which is why I
>> >> have brought it up again.
>> >
>> >Can you back up that assertion that contest activity
>> is "flat or declining"
>> >with data? On HF, it is exactly the opposite of my
>> personal observation.
>> >
>> I think there is a perception that activity on 10
>> meters has decreased significantly - and not due to
>> the sunspot cycle. As the number of novices and techs
>> decreases, I've noticed that the wild 10 meter QSO
>> counts of the early-mid 90s have not really been
>> matched today. You could spend most all day on 10 in
>> the NAQP, CQP, and SS contests - racking up unique Qs
>> from Novices and techs.
>
> The 2002 ARRL 10 Meter Contest had more log submissions
> than any previous ARRL contest in history. The number of
> submissions in the 10 Meter Contest in 2003 was slightly
> down, but so was propagation. Even so, I made at least one
> QSO in each of the 36 clock hours I operated last year in
> the contest, and the top phone-only single operators made
> in excess of 2500 QSOs (in 2001 and 2002 better propagation
> enabled nearly 3000 QSOs!)
>
> Yes, 10 meter activity will diminish as the solar cycle
> wanes.
>
> Japanese contest activity has diminished. But European
> contest activity has exploded in the past five years,
> and I believe that U.S. contest activity has been
> gently increasing - or at least I have no reason to think
> it's been declining, as naysayers will always assert.
>
> --
> Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
> kenharker at kenharker.com
> http://www.kenharker.com/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:36:44 -0600
> From: "Russell Hill" <rustyhill at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Limited Antenna Height Category
> To: <PaulKB8N at aol.com>, <rdetweil at hotmail.com>,
> <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <001801c4d71c$4e7f2cb0$28d0f218 at RCHill>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Paul-- it sounds as though you are in the San Antonio Area-- my home is
> in the Hill Country. Maybe we will meet, after I develop some mobility
> following major knee surgery last week.
>
> I know what you are saying, and I agree that those who chose to live in a
> deed or covenant restricted neighborhood have chosen for themselves. That
> is one of the reasons I have set up a location near Kerrville where I am
> not restricted.
>
> That said, I am pushing to encourage other contesters with similar setups
> to yours to feel they have a chance at some recognition, in order to get
> them to develop the skills and station organization to be active players.
> I keep hearing about the average age of contesters, and indeed all hams,
> getting higher and higher. That is simply a trend which cannot continue.
> (I myself am 63.) I am simply recognizing it is harder and harder to find
> a decent house in a decent neighborhood without draconian restrictions,
> which make a tower and beams increasingly available to a smaller and
> smaller slice of the contesting community. If we are unable to change the
> demographics of the contesters, then sometime in the next 20 years I
> expect contesting will dry up.
>
> I am planning to play in the 10M test in 2 weeks with a single radio and a
> dipole at 10 feet, the only antenna I can have where I am doing
> recuperation in Houston. I will have fun if there is any propagation, but
> I am grateful that after my recovery I will be able to go to a better
> antenna equipped station.
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
>
> Rusty
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: PaulKB8N at aol.com
> To: rdetweil at hotmail.com ; rustyhill at earthlink.net ;
> cq-contest at contesting.com
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Limited Antenna Height Category
>
>
> Rusty,
>
> We all choose our lot in life. I chose a covenant restricted
> neighborhood because we were offered a house here at a much reduced price
> because the contractor so thoroughly screwed up our first house, which we
> were building in an unrestricted neighborhood.
>
> I don't want to drag politics into this, but there is sometimes a mindset
> that everything must be somehow equalized in order to make everyone feel
> good about themselves. I believe that there is very little equality in
> anything, but therein lies the opportunity for skill, determination and
> innovation.
>
> I am operating a two radio setup in my restricted neighborhood with wires
> at 30' height and so thin that most neighbors don't even know they're
> there, but I consider my station to be extremely competitive in the low
> power category. To say I'm operating from a hole is really true, my
> neighborhood is called Deer Hollow! Nonetheless, I've tweaked everything
> for maximum efficiency, and it is one rockin' little station. I've built
> enough agility into my station that I've called and worked a lot of new
> mults before the other guy has his beam turned on him.
>
> I don't need or want to be compared with someone simply because of a
> similar physical infrastruicture. I've chosen my battleground and my
> weapons, its up to me take on the Goliaths and sometimes win. Even when I
> lose, I have more satisfaction in knowing I fought the good fight than any
> box score could give me. In the mean time, I will sharpen my weapons and
> eagerly await the next battle.
>
> Paul, K5AF
>
> Paul Schaffenberger
> 210-493-6265
> 210-213-5914(M)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:47:42 -0000
> From: "Barry " <w2up at mindspring.com>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] What SO2R has done to me...
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Message-ID: <41ACDC6E.17712.94A400 at localhost>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On the subject of SO2R...
>
> SO2R has made it very difficult for me to consider operating a single
> band contest. All that free time just sitting around with nothing to
> do during CQs makes them so boring!
> 73,
> Barry W2UP--
> Barry Kutner, W2UP Internet: w2up at mindspring.com
> Newtown, PA Frankford Radio Club
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:07:48 -0600
> From: K4RO Kirk Pickering <k4ro at k4ro.net>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] TIC Ring Potentiometer Failure?
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Cc: tic-owners at k4ro.net
> Message-ID: <20041130210748.GA19177 at darkstar.k4ro.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> I had six pots burn up before I found an alternative.
> The burn was happening at one end of the pot, and not
> on the wiper. Same place every time. I never could
> figure out what was causing the problem. It looked
> like a small fuse that opened up. I had MOV's and
> large bypass caps on every lead, and it still happened.
>
> I suspect the problem was in the control box, which is
> now in the junk box. I finally got sick of replacing the
> pots every 3 months. My current fix has lasted 3 years so
> far. Now I am using only one side of the pot and measuring
> resistance with an ohmmeter. I have a calibration chart,
> and it is repeatable to within +/- 3 degrees. Someday I'd
> like to build meter shunts and use the old meter box to
> indicate direction. Here is a picture of the control box:
>
> http://www.k4ro.net/tcg/image/ticring/new_tic_box.jpg
>
> The TIC-Owners reflector is still up and running, but
> there hasn't been any traffic for about a year or so.
> I've copied this post to see if any of the remaining
> addresses are still valid. :-)
>
> -Kirk K4RO
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 12:35:52PM -0000, Barry wrote:
>> Jim,
>> Could be one of two things. In the earlier rotors, there was a
>> suspected problem of RF burns on the pot coil. This seems to have
>> been cured putting a few bypass caps on the pot. This was added to
>> their production models 3-4 years ago, if I recall correctly.
>>
>> Another possibility, which has also happened to me, is water getting
>> into the pot and rusting it inside. I don't recall all the details,
>> but Carl at TIC made some changes to help prevent this as well. One
>> thing I did in additionis drill a few small holes in the bottom of
>> the motor box, for drainage. If water gets in, there's no way for it
>> to get out. Now there is.
>>
>> The only solution is replacing the pot. There is (was?) an informal
>> TIC reflector run by K4RO. I don't know if any archives are
>> available, but this problem was discussed in the past, so you may
>> want to contact him.
>>
>> My TIC rings worked fine this weekend. However, my T2X froze up
>> pointing west (40m Yagi and top TH7) on Saturday afternoon, when I
>> was ready to move from working some JAs and Pac on 15m, back to 40m
>> to work EU. So much for this contest :.(
>>
>> 73,
>> Barry W2UP
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28 Nov 2004 Jim Idelson wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Not far into the contest this weekend, we began to have trouble with
>> > the TIC 1022E [a 2003 unit]. It exhibits erratic readout and rotation
>> > behavior. The load is an Optibeam 4-el 40m yagi. I recently tightened
>> > the drive motor to eliminate slippage of the ring gear. I suspect
>> > something has happened to the potentiometer that feeds back rotor
>> > position back to the controller. A search of the towertalk archives
>> > shows that there have been problems like this in the past [1996/1997].
>> > I went up the tower to have a look this afternoon, but did not see
>> > enything suspicious. There were no bad external wiring connections,
>> > etc. I sprayed the drive shaft and what looks like the position pot
>> > shaft with contact cleaner from the outside. That did nothing, but I
>> > suspect I would have to disassemble the motor to get the spray into
>> > the right places.
>> >
>> > Any suggestions?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Jim Idelson K1IR
>> > email k1ir at designet.com
>> > web http://www.designet.com/k1ir
>>
>> --
>> Barry Kutner, W2UP Internet: w2up at mindspring.com
>> Newtown, PA Frankford Radio Club
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:11:16 -0800
> From: Jim Smith <jimsmith at shaw.ca>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited
> Antenna Height Category
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Message-ID: <41ACE1F4.6050808 at shaw.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I'm trying a different way to increase contest participation. I invited
> a bunch of newbie, no-ticket, folks taking the VECTOR club licence class
> to come to my QTH and op for CQWW SSB and SS SSB. They each got 2 hours
> of formal training in contest operating with about 50 min of actually
> making Qs. (Check out my 3830 stories for details.) Those who came
> back for SS got another 2 hours of more advanced training. Of the 16
> people, I'd say that about 12 of them were really turned on by the
> experience. Tonight they write the basic licence exam. In VE you can't
> get on the HF bands without 5 wpm so now they're asking if we're
> offering a code class after Xmas. We are. They're also asking if the
> club will help them with antennas. How could I say no?
>
> It's too early to tell whether this will actually translate into more
> contesters although a previous and much less structured effort has
> produced one. If you got VA7IRL for a sweep in SS you can thank me.
>
> The point I'm trying to make is this. If you want to see more
> contesters, you might try growing some. The local club's licence class
> is a good place to find the seeds.
>
> I was dubious at first about sharing the big contests with others and
> started off using state QSO parties for training. The trouble was that
> it was sometimes a long time between Qs so I, somewhat grudgingly,
> invited the newbies to participate in the big ones. I'm now glad that I
> did. It's a lot of fun seeing their excitement when they make the first
> Q in their life and it's someone in Eu or Australia. Mind you, I don't
> know how I'll feel when I have to start sharing the CW ones.
>
> So, (tongue planted firmly in cheek) how about a couple of new
> categories? One for stations with trainees occupying up to 25% of the
> time and another for the over 25% crowd? When I start doing SO2R
> training will I be wanting another 2 categories? Guess I'd better learn
> how to do it myself first.
>
> 73 de Jim Smith VE7FO
>
> Pete Smith wrote:
>
>> At 10:20 AM 11/30/2004, Russell Hill wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to suggest this thread consider something else--keeping
>>> the casual operator in the contest. I have read many comments about
>>> the necessity to have the casual operators in the contests-- they are
>>> involved in the majority of Qs-- we need them!
>>
>>
>>
>> Rusty goes on to suggest that a limited height category would help
>> keep participation going (or growing), but I wonder if that's really
>> true. I have seen stats suggesting that perhaps as few as one in 8 or
>> 10 stations logged in CQWW even bothers to send in a log. Doesn't
>> that imply that most people get on to fatten their DXCC totals, for
>> the inherent thrill of working DX, or even just to have something to
>> do on a cold fall weekend?
>>
>> If we really want to stimulate increased log submission in CQWW, I'd
>> suggest that a good way to do it would be to implement direct linkages
>> between the CQWW database and LotW, such that when a QSO was confirmed
>> by receipt of both logs by CQWW, it would be considered confirmed for
>> DXCC purposes.
>>
>> This needn't be done in real time, or involve any elaborate
>> inter-database communication. I'm confident that ways could be found
>> to do it that would not affect CQWW's hard-held position that logs
>> submitted to them will not be disclosed to anyone. A harder problem
>> may be achieving the requisite level of trust between the two
>> organizations, even though things seem much better now than in the
>> past, when ARRL would not even mention CQ contests in QST.
>>
>> If the cultural divide is still too wide, maybe an easier challenge
>> would be for the ARRL to do this for its own contests. I bet that
>> participation, as measured by log submissions, would benefit
>> substantially.
>>
>> 73, Pete
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:24:17 -0500
> From: Pete Smith <n4zr at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited
> Antenna Height Category
> To: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker at kenharker.com>, CQ Contest
> <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20041130160325.02223bd0 at mail.adelphia.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> In response to Ken's skepticism, I just took a quick look at some
> stats. I used the ARRL numbers because they were readily available
> on-line. These may not be 100 percent accurate, because in a couple
> of the earlier cases I could not tell whether the totals cited in QST
> were
> just competitors or included check logs, but they give a general
> sense. Later numbers represent the total in the score database, so check
> logs have been excluded.
>
> ARRL CW SS: 2000 - 1236
> 2001 - 1268
> 2002 - 1319
> 2003 - 1240
>
> ARRL DX CW: 2000 - 2290
> 2001 - 2418
> 2002 - 2384
> 2003 - 2350
> 2004 - 2681
>
> ARRL DX PH: 2000 - 2172
> 2001 - 2303
> 2002 - 2286
> 2003 - 2263
> 2004 - 2267
>
> ARRL 10M 2000 - 2875
> 2001 - 2522
> 2002 - 3121
> 2003 - 2324
>
> I freely acknowledge that falling sunspot numbers tend to be a drag on
> participation, particularly in contests like the ARRL 10-meter contest.
> We
> also don't know whether the average number of operating hours per log is
> flat, up or down. Finally, we do not have access to the data, so far as I
> know, on the total number of calls actually showing up in logs in these
> contests.
>
> If it is true that only a small proportion of the total on-air
> participants
> send in logs, then we have no information on what's happening to the
> numbers of casual participants. Here I enter the realm of the subjective,
> because it feels to me, in CW contests in particular, as if the total
> number of inhabitants of the bands during contests I've entered has
> declined. I guess that's the exact opposite of Ken's perception.
>
> Bottom line -- "declining" may have been a bit strong, but "flat" seems
> justified. Should we settle for flat?
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
>
>
>
>
> At 02:30 PM 11/30/2004, Kenneth E. Harker wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:01:16PM -0500, Pete Smith wrote:
>>
>> > Doesn't mean it isn't still a good idea,
>> particularly
>> > in the face of flat or declining participation in contests, which is
>> > why I
>> > have brought it up again.
>>
>>Can you back up that assertion that contest activity is "flat or
>>declining"
>>with data? On HF, it is exactly the opposite of my personal observation.
>>
>>--
>>Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
>>kenharker at kenharker.com
>>http://www.kenharker.com/
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>CQ-Contest mailing list
>>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:32:26 -0800
> From: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker at kenharker.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited
> Antenna Height Category
> To: Pete Smith <n4zr at contesting.com>
> Cc: CQ Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <20041130213226.GN10422 at kenharker.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 04:24:17PM -0500, Pete Smith wrote:
>>
>> If it is true that only a small proportion of the total on-air
>> participants
>> send in logs, then we have no information on what's happening to the
>> numbers of casual participants. Here I enter the realm of the
>> subjective,
>> because it feels to me, in CW contests in particular, as if the total
>> number of inhabitants of the bands during contests I've entered has
>> declined. I guess that's the exact opposite of Ken's perception.
>
> FWIW, I am almost exclusively a phone contester, so that will affect my
> perception vs. a CW-only contester.
>
> --
> Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
> kenharker at kenharker.com
> http://www.kenharker.com/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:56:40 -0500
> From: "Ron Notarius" <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited
> Antenna Height Category
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <05df01c4d728$9f2544e0$2f01a8c0 at presario>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I don't think it's quite that simple... or for that matter, that
> complicated.
>
> Considering the number of contesters currently submitting electronic logs,
> or using logging programs to generate their paper logs... considering
> further the number of logging programs that can generate either ADIF
> and/or
> Cabrillo format files, to say nothing of the number of conversion programs
> available... what's the big deal about submitting two email submissions --
> one to the contest organizer to enter the contest, one to Logbook of the
> World -- by those that choose to use the system?
>
> And -- since many have decided, at least for now for any number or reasons
> not to participate in LotW, why would we "backdoor" them into the system?
> I'm quite sure that there would be many screaming bloody murder about
> having
> their contest logs matched into LotW without their prior knowledge or
> permission (which, of course, will be blamed on the ARRL -- isn't
> everything
> these days?). Why are we in such a rush these days, anyway? Do the
> bragging rights of the award(s) involved mean that much?
>
> As far as the DX contest credits, yes, they considered it -- I asked about
> that at Dayton a year or three ago. The response was very detailed about
> what could and could not be done and why, but the bottom line was that it
> would only take an extra step and a few minutes to process the log with
> Trusted QSL for LotW submission, so what was the big deal about it? I
> don't
> think the "trust" issue here has anything to do with amateur morality,
> past
> or present, but with making the system itself trustworthy. If you believe
> the system can be easily compromised by bogus QSO data (as can so easily
> be
> done with eQSL -- and I have a "P5SLIM" eQSL to prove it), you have no
> trust
> in the system. If you do not trust the system, you won't use it or rely
> on
> it.
>
> The onus here should be on the contester & contest station, not the
> League,
> the CQWW committee, or any other organization. If you want fast
> confirmation for awards purposes of the contest logs, then encourage your
> fellow contesters to submit their logs. It's that simple.
>
> And FWIW, once I finally got off my duff, got my LotW credentials in
> order,
> converted most of my logsm and uploaded them, I got more "confirmed QSOs"
> in
> the first 15 minutes than I've seen in at least 5 years of eQSL activity.
> Not sure what that means, but it sure is interesting trivia!
>
> 73, ron wn3vaw
> 12000+ post-1983 QSO's uploaded, pre-1984 QSO's to go
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:34:44 -0500
>> From: Pete Smith <n4zr at contesting.com>
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited
>> Antenna Height Category
>> To: dezrat1242 at ispwest.com
>> Cc: CQ-contest at contesting.com
>>
>> I acknowledge that ARRL would be "letting down their guard" to some
>> extent
>> if they allowed block transfers of matched CQWW QSOs, but at some point
>> in
>> any such exercise I think you have to ask how much you are giving away
>> for
>> the last 1 percent of security. After all, how likely is it that
>> somebody
>> would cook both ends of a QSO in CQWW and then have both logs sent in,
>> simply to fake out the DXCC system? I suppose you could even carry it a
>> step further and have some internal rules about not crediting QSOs where
>> both ends are uniques, or perhaps other checks could be accomplished.
>>
>> Its worth remembering that ARRL used to credit ARRL DX Contest QSOs for
>> DXCC, if both logs were sent in and matched. To my knowledge, it was
>> workload, rather than any particular scandal(s), that brought the end of
>> that practice. Has the morality of the amateur community really declined
>> so much that ARRL no longer dares even consider such a thing?
>>
>> 73, Pete N4ZR
>>
>> 10:59 AM 11/30/2004, you wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:46:57 -0500, Pete Smith wrote:
>> >
>> > >A harder problem may be achieving the requisite
>> > >level of trust between the two organizations, even though things seem
> much
>> > >better now than in the past, when ARRL would not even mention CQ
> contests
>> > >in QST.
>> >
>> >_________________________________________________________
>> >
>> >The ARRL would have to give up their Trusted QSL protocol, wouldn't
>> >they? How would you get around that?
>> >
>> >--
>> >Bill W6WRT
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> >Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >CQ-Contest mailing list
>> >CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:27:13 -0800 (PST)
> From: Joe Contester <radiosporting at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Anonymous/pseudonymous posts
> To: Pete Smith <n4zr at contesting.com>, CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> Message-ID: <20041130222713.47624.qmail at web80908.mail.scd.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hi Pete,
> There is no ominous intent here. I'm Ev, W2EV. I'm attempting to
> segregate my email accounts by area of interest...nothing more. If anyone
> were so inclined, they could easily check the IP address of the emails in
> thier "trash" folder and match up an anonymous post with others already
> received. It's easy to do.
>
> As long as folks engage in on-topic and non-attacking email threads, I
> don't see the harm in not IDing with every "transmission". :)
>
> On a personal note, I've received so many emails with my name misspelled
> anyway, I'm not certain it really matters anyway.
>
> Even so...there's no mystery here. It's me. :)
>
>
> Pete Smith <n4zr at contesting.com> wrote:
>
> These postings from Joe Contester raise this point; should it not be
> standard practice that people posting to cq-contest sign either their
> call-signs or their real names?
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> End of CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 23, Issue 91
> ******************************************
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.803 / Virus Database: 546 - Release Date: 11/30/2004
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list