[CQ-Contest] Checklog Charlie

[Igor Sokolov]

Joe,
Do not give up.
I think I have found CAT interface for your old radio.
http://www.i2tzk.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55:vintagecat&catid=31:projects&Itemid=46

If you can not build it yourself you can probably find someone who would do 
it for you for much less then 5000 $.
I still remember the time (about 25 years ago) when for most of us here in 
Russia  cost of entering CQWW contest was building a transciever. And we 
never complained or thought it was unfair.

73, Igor UA9CDC



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe" <nss at mwt.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2015 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Checklog Charlie


>I don't ever see in the next decade or even more any contest sponsor 
>requiring this. Unless they want to cut the participation level.
> I know I wouldn't be able to enter
>
> Drake TR-4  or Kenwood TS-430S
>
> Joe WB9SBD
> Sig
> The Original Rolling Ball Clock
> Idle Tyme
> Idle-Tyme.com
> http://www.idle-tyme.com
> On 5/9/2015 9:34 AM, Mike Reublin NF4L wrote:
>> I'm missing something here. How is it the fault of the rig that xmit 
>> freq. isn't logged? Any modern rig is capable of supplying the frequency 
>> of both VFOs. It's a trivial matter for the software to request it. It 
>> just isn't tradition.
>>
>> If the contest sponsors require it, the programmers will include it. 
>> Course you'd also have to know if split was on.
>>
>> 73, Mike NF4L
>>
>>> On May 9, 2015, at 7:05 AM, Ed Sawyer <sawyered at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> W2LC wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Neither my radio or software is capable of logging the transmit 
>>> frequency
>>> for
>>>
>>> me, so does that mean I can no longer submit a log for CQWW?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The software is not the big issue but the radio is. What is the cost of
>>> adding
>>>
>>> my transmit frequency to my log? About $5k USD for a good radio decent
>>> filters
>>>
>>> and other accessories. Is that the price of entry into CQWW?  Quite 
>>> honestly
>>> my
>>>
>>> older radio still works pretty well and I do not see getting many more 
>>> QSOs
>>> due
>>>
>>> to a new radio. The ROI would be very low.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it now the policy of the CQWW committee to say to older radio users 
>>> "we
>>>
>>> don't want you in this contest"?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------
>>>
>>> Actually, since you already have an older radio, the cost of good clean
>>> FT1000MP with decent filters on the used market is about $1,400.  And 
>>> for
>>> $100 you can buy virtually any contest software. So the real need is 
>>> more
>>> like $1,500 - not $5,000.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And the point of it, if required, would not be that you can't 
>>> participate in
>>> the contest and submit your log, but rather you might not be eligible 
>>> for
>>> significant awards.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that the separation of the 6,000+ entrants that are enjoying
>>> themselves from the 1,000 that are truly competing would be a good thing 
>>> for
>>> the sport.  Requiring those that are actually "in it to compete and do 
>>> well"
>>> something that is completely unnecessary for the rest of the crowd is 
>>> fine
>>> if someone knows it's the "price of admission" to be a competitor. 
>>> Nothing
>>> in this world worth competing for is cheap to play in or easy to win. 
>>> Why
>>> should radiosport be any different?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ed  N1UR
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest