[CQ-Contest] CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 199, Issue 20
Ars W6ABM
arsw6abm at gmail.com
Tue Jul 23 20:10:18 EDT 2019
I worked from the Cloud Cap Lookout at Crater Lake National Park in Oregon,
CN82xv.
We do a special event for the Park's anniversary each year. I started doing
6 meters
there several years ago for this event. Working at nearly 8,000 feet asl
is interesting (my own station
is at 225 feet asl). I made a grand total of 3 contacts (3 Grids/3 States)
as a Hilltopper this year, all SSB.
No real opening.
I used 50.313 as an "beacon." I could tell when the band had promise if I
could hear the entire 13
seconds of the FT8 exchange.
I'll have FT 4/8 next year for this third Saturday in July event! I'll
still favor SSB (and the occasional
CW signal when they appear).
Everett W6ABM
Hillsboro OR
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 4:48 PM <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-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. DX Code of Conduct (Martin, LU5DX)
> 2. possible changes for CQ VHF Contest (Dennis McAlpine )
> 3. Re: possible changes for CQ VHF Contest (Edward Sawyer)
> 4. Re: possible changes for CQ VHF Contest (Courtney Judd)
> 5. Re: possible changes for CQ VHF Contest (Zack Widup)
> 6. Re: possible changes for CQ VHF Contest (jimk8mr at aol.com)
> 7. Re: possible changes for CQ VHF Contest (Jeff Clarke)
> 8. SO2R filtering help (Dan)
> 9. Re: possible changes for CQ VHF Contest (David Gilbert)
> 10. Re: possible changes for CQ VHF Contest (Mike Smith VE9AA)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 11:45:51 -0300
> From: "Martin, LU5DX" <lu5dx at lucg.com.ar>
> To: CQ-Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] DX Code of Conduct
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAFi2tqiXYJn-n_N_nG7eLHW-kdEG-xfvqiTm7FsXVPgVJFXjbA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Hello,
>
> Isn't http://dx-code.org/ on line any more?
>
> 73,
>
> Martin LU5DX
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 12:24:05 -0400
> From: "Dennis McAlpine " <dbmcalpine73 at gmail.com>
> To: <K9JK.cq at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Com'" <cq-contest at contesting.com>, "Dave Sumner"
> <sumner at snet.net>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] possible changes for CQ VHF Contest
> Message-ID: <01a501d54173$0c94a3d0$25bdeb70$@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> GM John,
>
>
>
> I enjoyed the past weekend and the CQ VHF Contest quite a lot. For once,
> there was propagation from SC to most areas East of the Mississippi both
> afternoons. I, for once, actually thought I had done pretty well
> considering that I only run about 400 watts into an H-Doublebay antenna
> with
> the top at about 35' above ground. I ended up `with 326 QSOs and 120 grid
> squares for a score of 39,120, all on 6M. I have not used FT8/FT4 in
> contests since I think it is against the principle that these contests are
> a
> test of operator skill as much as equipment savy. I was a bit surprised
> when I filled in the 3830 score submittal that it did not request a
> breakdown by mode into CW, SSB, digital but then there was no separate
> category within the contest either. All was fine until I started seeing
> other scores coming in.
>
>
>
> It fast became obvious that unless one used the digital modes, they would
> be
> banished to the lower echelons of the standings and my score quickly slid
> down the rankings. So, I started looking at the top scores for 6M. I
> was
> amazed at how many digital QSOs these scores contained. For example, K1TO
> had 150 FT8 QSOs out of 715 in total, which was 21%. Similarly, N4BP had
> 194 digital out of 673 total (29%); W5PR had 157 out of 564 (28%); KU8E had
> 88/508 (17%); N4PN 212/312 for 68%; WQ5L 103/445 (23%); and W4PV 124/193
> (64%).
>
>
>
> Even more important was the much higher number of grid squares worked. It
> would appear that digital added 20-80 grid squares to the total mult. I
> can't break it sown further because the summaries do not ask for such a
> breakdown in the submittal. Again, there are no numbers to back this up,
> but how many EU stations did you work on CW or SSB? Probably not many (I
> had none and heard none) . But, I bet the top digital scores were loaded
> with DX QSOs that other modes never heard or had a chance of hearing. No
> wonder the mult totals were so high. I never worked anyone west of the
> Mississippi so I was really sucking wind.
>
>
>
> In looking at the total scores, I saw one very startling fact. Of the top
> three scorers, K1TO had 6 CW QSOs, N4BP had 1 and W5PR had 1. To say they
> ignored the CW mode is an understatement. It is evident from these numbers
> that CW is an endangered species when it comes to the CQ VHF Contest. If I
> wanted to use digital modes, I would certainly ignore CW in the future if I
> wanted a higher score.
>
>
>
> I respectively request that you consider the following proposals. First,
> require submittal forms to include a breakdown of CW, SSB, Digital (maybe
> broken down into FT-4 and FT-8) QSOs and mults. I think these are easily
> found on logging programs like n1mm+. This would probably require that
> mults be counted per mode and that QSOs could be made with the same person
> on different modes. Then, valid comparisons could be made. Second, allow
> mode entries. A competitor could submit multiple logs, i.e. one for CW,
> one
> for SSB, one for digital and one for combined. It would make the log
> checkers job easier. Think of how tough it was to make QSOs when
> conditions
> were not as good as they were last weekend. Allowing QSOs per mode would
> triple the number of possible QSOs and keep the contest from being a real
> drag.
>
>
>
> Let's adapt the rules to the situation before it becomes too late and CW
> sinks down into the mud, never to raise its head again.
>
>
>
> 73,
>
> Dennis, K2SX
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:08:58 -0400
> From: Edward Sawyer <EdwardS at sbelectronics.com>
> To: "cq-contest at contesting.com" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] possible changes for CQ VHF Contest
> Message-ID:
> <
> 0D39B6681B67B44DAEC5D6AD99294A8E04CED808E773 at SBEMAIL.sbelectronics.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I'm not sure how providing breakdowns changes the outcome. CW is quickly
> going to die in VHF contests since its either high rate SSB or not. And if
> not, FT4/8 wins the day.
>
> The same thing is happening to many DX pursuits. 6M and 160M are becoming
> dominated by FT8.
>
> Thankfully, I enjoy CW and SSB HF contests where that problem manages
> itself. And the new HF Digi contest provides a nice competitive outlet for
> those inclined.
>
> 73
>
> Ed N1UR
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 12:36:55 -0500
> From: Courtney Judd <k4wi at k4wi.net>
> To: Dennis McAlpine <dbmcalpine73 at gmail.com>
> Cc: "cq-contest at contesting.com" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] possible changes for CQ VHF Contest
> Message-ID: <5D3745B7.8080505 at k4wi.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> hello Dennis, I enjoyed your email and think it was spot on. I don't use
> ft8/4 and don't think they should be allowed .... maybe they should have
> their own contests. I spent quite amount of time in this contest and
> came up very short of mults compared to those that added ft8. I am not
> pleased you could say. 90% of my qso's were ssb and 10% on CW... 0% ft8.
> I ended up with 711 qso's and 160 grids as SB 6 HP. I had one Euro call
> me on SSB. I had pretty good prop for most directions except for the
> North and mid west. Another bug that bothers me to no end is
> DX-peditions that do ft8 at the expense of RTTY. They get NO financial
> support from me. OK, call me a grumpy old man but I just don't see ft/8
> as real radio.... Just my 2 cents! 73's Cort K4WI
>
> > Dennis McAlpine <mailto:dbmcalpine73 at gmail.com>
> > Tuesday, July 23, 2019 11:24 AM
> > GM John,
> >
> >
> >
> > I enjoyed the past weekend and the CQ VHF Contest quite a lot. For once,
> > there was propagation from SC to most areas East of the Mississippi both
> > afternoons. I, for once, actually thought I had done pretty well
> > considering that I only run about 400 watts into an H-Doublebay
> > antenna with
> > the top at about 35' above ground. I ended up `with 326 QSOs and 120 grid
> > squares for a score of 39,120, all on 6M. I have not used FT8/FT4 in
> > contests since I think it is against the principle that these contests
> > are a
> > test of operator skill as much as equipment savy. I was a bit surprised
> > when I filled in the 3830 score submittal that it did not request a
> > breakdown by mode into CW, SSB, digital but then there was no separate
> > category within the contest either. All was fine until I started seeing
> > other scores coming in.
> >
> >
> >
> > It fast became obvious that unless one used the digital modes, they
> > would be
> > banished to the lower echelons of the standings and my score quickly slid
> > down the rankings. So, I started looking at the top scores for 6M. I was
> > amazed at how many digital QSOs these scores contained. For example, K1TO
> > had 150 FT8 QSOs out of 715 in total, which was 21%. Similarly, N4BP had
> > 194 digital out of 673 total (29%); W5PR had 157 out of 564 (28%);
> > KU8E had
> > 88/508 (17%); N4PN 212/312 for 68%; WQ5L 103/445 (23%); and W4PV 124/193
> > (64%).
> >
> >
> >
> > Even more important was the much higher number of grid squares worked. It
> > would appear that digital added 20-80 grid squares to the total mult. I
> > can't break it sown further because the summaries do not ask for such a
> > breakdown in the submittal. Again, there are no numbers to back this up,
> > but how many EU stations did you work on CW or SSB? Probably not many (I
> > had none and heard none) . But, I bet the top digital scores were loaded
> > with DX QSOs that other modes never heard or had a chance of hearing. No
> > wonder the mult totals were so high. I never worked anyone west of the
> > Mississippi so I was really sucking wind.
> >
> >
> >
> > In looking at the total scores, I saw one very startling fact. Of the top
> > three scorers, K1TO had 6 CW QSOs, N4BP had 1 and W5PR had 1. To say they
> > ignored the CW mode is an understatement. It is evident from these
> numbers
> > that CW is an endangered species when it comes to the CQ VHF Contest. If
> I
> > wanted to use digital modes, I would certainly ignore CW in the future
> > if I
> > wanted a higher score.
> >
> >
> >
> > I respectively request that you consider the following proposals. First,
> > require submittal forms to include a breakdown of CW, SSB, Digital (maybe
> > broken down into FT-4 and FT-8) QSOs and mults. I think these are easily
> > found on logging programs like n1mm+. This would probably require that
> > mults be counted per mode and that QSOs could be made with the same
> person
> > on different modes. Then, valid comparisons could be made. Second, allow
> > mode entries. A competitor could submit multiple logs, i.e. one for
> > CW, one
> > for SSB, one for digital and one for combined. It would make the log
> > checkers job easier. Think of how tough it was to make QSOs when
> > conditions
> > were not as good as they were last weekend. Allowing QSOs per mode would
> > triple the number of possible QSOs and keep the contest from being a real
> > drag.
> >
> >
> >
> > Let's adapt the rules to the situation before it becomes too late and CW
> > sinks down into the mud, never to raise its head again.
> >
> >
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Dennis, K2SX
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:05:55 -0500
> From: Zack Widup <w9sz.zack at gmail.com>
> To: CQ Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] possible changes for CQ VHF Contest
> Message-ID:
> <
> CANJxhWjoD_SzYksRX+NnvOnLyYaw9sN0_4ZF_86fU+FhcV5R7g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> This may be true of contests that don't incorporate microwave bands, but I
> don't think from my observation that microwave QSO's are going to change
> much in contests that include microwave / mmwave bands. Most of them are CW
> unless signals are really strong. And most of these contests award high
> points for microwave QSO's. And with good reason. They are more difficult.
>
> 73, Zack W9SZ
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:49 PM Edward Sawyer <EdwardS at sbelectronics.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure how providing breakdowns changes the outcome. CW is quickly
> > going to die in VHF contests since its either high rate SSB or not. And
> if
> > not, FT4/8 wins the day.
> >
> > The same thing is happening to many DX pursuits. 6M and 160M are
> becoming
> > dominated by FT8.
> >
> > Thankfully, I enjoy CW and SSB HF contests where that problem manages
> > itself. And the new HF Digi contest provides a nice competitive outlet
> for
> > those inclined.
> >
> > 73
> >
> > Ed N1UR
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
>
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon
> >
> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link
> >
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 19:40:54 +0000 (UTC)
> From: jimk8mr at aol.com
> To: dbmcalpine73 at gmail.com, K9JK.cq at gmail.com
> Cc: sumner at snet.net, cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] possible changes for CQ VHF Contest
> Message-ID: <1246913705.15823.1563910854480 at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hi Dennis,
> I'd suggest a somewhat middle ground: digital modes (FT*, etc.) and analog
> modes (SSB, CW, FM voice, etc.).
>
> And then allow single "mode" or mixed "mode" (analog - digital) entries,
> with repeat QSOs on the other mode.
> It did not happen for me this weekend, but it has not been unusual in the
> past to have cross-mode QSOs - CW to SSB. I would not want to make those
> impossible, as most were me calling a distant station on CW who was unable
> to copy me on SSB.
>
> As for CW vs. SSB, I had just about the same number of QSOs on each of
> those modes. Maybe because it was easier to punch F1 with the left hand and
> punch "page down" with the right hand as I was reading the online news on a
> separate computer.
> And thanks for that CW QSO!
>
> 73? -? Jim?? K8MR
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis McAlpine <dbmcalpine73 at gmail.com>
> To: K9JK.cq <K9JK.cq at gmail.com>
> Cc: Dave Sumner <sumner at snet.net>; Com' <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Tue, Jul 23, 2019 1:00 pm
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] possible changes for CQ VHF Contest
>
> GM John,
>
>
>
> I enjoyed the past weekend and the CQ VHF Contest quite a lot.? For once,
> there was propagation from SC to most areas East of the Mississippi both
> afternoons.? I, for once, actually thought I had done pretty well
> considering that I only run about 400 watts into an H-Doublebay antenna
> with
> the top at about 35' above ground.? I ended up `with 326 QSOs and 120 grid
> squares for a score of 39,120, all on 6M.? I have not used FT8/FT4 in
> contests since I think it is against the principle that these contests are
> a
> test of operator skill as much as equipment savy.? I was a bit surprised
> when I filled in the 3830 score submittal that it did not request a
> breakdown by mode into CW, SSB, digital but then there was no separate
> category within the contest either.? All was fine until I started seeing
> other scores coming in.
>
>
>
> It fast became obvious that unless one used the digital modes, they would
> be
> banished to the lower echelons of the standings and my score quickly slid
> down the rankings.? ? So, I started looking at the top scores for 6M.? I
> was
> amazed at how many digital QSOs these scores contained.? For example, K1TO
> had 150 FT8 QSOs out of 715 in total, which was 21%.? Similarly, N4BP had
> 194 digital out of 673 total (29%); W5PR had 157 out of 564 (28%); KU8E had
> 88/508 (17%); N4PN 212/312 for 68%; WQ5L 103/445 (23%); and W4PV 124/193
> (64%).?
>
>
>
> Even more important was the much higher number of grid squares worked.? It
> would appear that digital added 20-80 grid squares to the total mult.? I
> can't break it sown further because the summaries do not ask for such a
> breakdown in the submittal.? Again, there are no numbers to back this up,
> but how many EU stations did you work on CW or SSB?? Probably not many (I
> had none and heard none) .? But, I bet the top digital scores were loaded
> with DX QSOs that other modes never heard or had a chance of hearing.? No
> wonder the mult totals were so high.? I never worked anyone west of the
> Mississippi so I was really sucking wind.?
>
>
>
> In looking at the total scores, I saw one very startling fact.? Of the top
> three scorers, K1TO had 6 CW QSOs, N4BP had 1 and W5PR had 1.? To say they
> ignored the CW mode is an understatement.? It is evident from these numbers
> that CW is an endangered species when it comes to the CQ VHF Contest.? If I
> wanted to use digital modes, I would certainly ignore CW in the future if I
> wanted a higher score.
>
>
>
> I respectively request that you consider the following proposals.? First,
> require submittal forms to include a breakdown of CW, SSB, Digital (maybe
> broken down into FT-4 and FT-8) QSOs and mults.? I think these are easily
> found on logging programs like n1mm+.? This would probably require that
> mults be counted per mode and that QSOs could be made with the same person
> on different modes.? Then, valid comparisons could be made.? Second, allow
> mode entries.? A competitor could submit multiple logs, i.e. one for CW,
> one
> for SSB, one for digital and one for combined.? It would make the log
> checkers job easier.? Think of how tough it was to make QSOs when
> conditions
> were not as good as they were last weekend.? Allowing QSOs per mode would
> triple the number of possible QSOs and keep the contest from being a real
> drag.
>
>
>
> Let's adapt the rules to the situation before it becomes too late and CW
> sinks down into the mud, never to raise its head again.?
>
>
>
> 73,
>
> Dennis, K2SX
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:44:15 -0400
> From: Jeff Clarke <ku8e at ku8e.com>
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] possible changes for CQ VHF Contest
> Message-ID: <c8bf14bd-7d98-1aa6-6d6b-c512f048f5f2 at ku8e.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Hi Dennis,
>
> I can't say that I really like FT8 that much. I just do it to increase
> my score and only went to that mode when I heard no other signals on
> either CW or SSB. I ended up with 101 CW QSO's, which I think is more
> than anyone else who posted their breakdown by mode. The one advantage I
> see with FT8/FT4 that it's possible to work closer in grids that you
> might not even hear on SSB or CW.? Plus it's a good propagation
> indicator. When signals were above 0 dB on FT8 I knew it was time to try
> CW or SSB again. I quit around midnight on Saturday night to sleep even
> though I was still coping FT8 signals.
>
> My strategy was to be on SSB when signals were really loud, CW when they
> got weaker and FT8 when they were gone. I'm afraid the FT4/FT8 mode
> isn't going to go away in VHF contests so if you want to have a good
> score you have to bite the bullet and as my good friend and mentor K8MR
> said "go over to the dark side". I think the next thing the serious SO2R
> guys will do is to have one station on the traditional SSB/CW modes and
> another totally dedicated to FT8/FT4. They might be doing this already?
> A narrow band pass filter would be needed so you don't blow out the
> front end of your receivers.
>
> 73, Jeff
>
> On 7/23/2019 12:24 PM, Dennis McAlpine wrote:
> > GM John,
> >
> >
> >
> > I enjoyed the past weekend and the CQ VHF Contest quite a lot. For once,
> > there was propagation from SC to most areas East of the Mississippi both
> > afternoons. I, for once, actually thought I had done pretty well
> > considering that I only run about 400 watts into an H-Doublebay antenna
> with
> > the top at about 35' above ground. I ended up `with 326 QSOs and 120
> grid
> > squares for a score of 39,120, all on 6M. I have not used FT8/FT4 in
> > contests since I think it is against the principle that these contests
> are a
> > test of operator skill as much as equipment savy. I was a bit surprised
> > when I filled in the 3830 score submittal that it did not request a
> > breakdown by mode into CW, SSB, digital but then there was no separate
> > category within the contest either. All was fine until I started seeing
> > other scores coming in.
> >
> >
> >
> > It fast became obvious that unless one used the digital modes, they
> would be
> > banished to the lower echelons of the standings and my score quickly slid
> > down the rankings. So, I started looking at the top scores for 6M. I
> was
> > amazed at how many digital QSOs these scores contained. For example,
> K1TO
> > had 150 FT8 QSOs out of 715 in total, which was 21%. Similarly, N4BP had
> > 194 digital out of 673 total (29%); W5PR had 157 out of 564 (28%); KU8E
> had
> > 88/508 (17%); N4PN 212/312 for 68%; WQ5L 103/445 (23%); and W4PV 124/193
> > (64%).
> >
> >
> >
> > Even more important was the much higher number of grid squares worked.
> It
> > would appear that digital added 20-80 grid squares to the total mult. I
> > can't break it sown further because the summaries do not ask for such a
> > breakdown in the submittal. Again, there are no numbers to back this up,
> > but how many EU stations did you work on CW or SSB? Probably not many (I
> > had none and heard none) . But, I bet the top digital scores were loaded
> > with DX QSOs that other modes never heard or had a chance of hearing. No
> > wonder the mult totals were so high. I never worked anyone west of the
> > Mississippi so I was really sucking wind.
> >
> >
> >
> > In looking at the total scores, I saw one very startling fact. Of the
> top
> > three scorers, K1TO had 6 CW QSOs, N4BP had 1 and W5PR had 1. To say
> they
> > ignored the CW mode is an understatement. It is evident from these
> numbers
> > that CW is an endangered species when it comes to the CQ VHF Contest.
> If I
> > wanted to use digital modes, I would certainly ignore CW in the future
> if I
> > wanted a higher score.
> >
> >
> >
> > I respectively request that you consider the following proposals. First,
> > require submittal forms to include a breakdown of CW, SSB, Digital (maybe
> > broken down into FT-4 and FT-8) QSOs and mults. I think these are easily
> > found on logging programs like n1mm+. This would probably require that
> > mults be counted per mode and that QSOs could be made with the same
> person
> > on different modes. Then, valid comparisons could be made. Second,
> allow
> > mode entries. A competitor could submit multiple logs, i.e. one for CW,
> one
> > for SSB, one for digital and one for combined. It would make the log
> > checkers job easier. Think of how tough it was to make QSOs when
> conditions
> > were not as good as they were last weekend. Allowing QSOs per mode would
> > triple the number of possible QSOs and keep the contest from being a real
> > drag.
> >
> >
> >
> > Let's adapt the rules to the situation before it becomes too late and CW
> > sinks down into the mud, never to raise its head again.
> >
> >
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Dennis, K2SX
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 17:06:37 -0400
> From: "Dan" <w8car at buckeye-express.com>
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] SO2R filtering help
> Message-ID: <4C3E8D8718244336A2B9186744CD6B64 at TurdFerguson>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> I am baffled by a problem that I?m having setting up to do interference
> free SO2R operating running LP. I?ve tried stubs and they have no effect on
> harmonics. I have good W3NQN style bandpass filters and THEY don?t seem to
> knock down harmonics. I know the stubs/filters are working as they greatly
> attenuate received signals if I put them on the band of harmonic
> attenuation. (40 meter filter in line while receiving on on 20 ) I?m using
> a K3 an FT1000MP. Filtering and stubs have no effect on either radio.
>
> I have read that there could be something other than the rigs creating
> harmonics. IE corrosion, wall warts, grounding problems. What I need are
> ideas on how to track these buggers if indeed this is the problem.
> Thanks in advance
>
> Dan W8CAR
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 14:05:43 -0700
> From: David Gilbert <xdavid at cis-broadband.com>
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] possible changes for CQ VHF Contest
> Message-ID: <3ee72692-e01b-2fe4-8287-eb6038f55570 at cis-broadband.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
>
> I can fully understand the concern about CW and SSB being marginalized
> at the expense of FT8 or FT4, but I totally fail to understand your ire
> toward FT8/4 versus RTTY.? It makes no sense to me at all.? From an
> operational point of view in either contests or for working DXpeditions,
> the mechanics seem almost identical to me:
>
> A.? You don't need to hear the audio for either mode.? The software does
> all the decoding.
>
> B.? The exchange for both modes consists simply of a callsign and a
> report.? There isn't anything more personal about RTTY than FT8/4 since
> both exchanges for both modes are equally succinct and both offer the
> opportunity to include a brief customized greeting (13 characters worth
> for FT8).
>
> C.? In practice, I'd bet most RTTY ops click on a button or a bandmap,
> or a waterfall or a stack of calls in N1MM+, to jump to the next
> contact.? Just like ops do in FT8/4.
>
> D.? Transmissions in FT8/4 aren't totally automated if you're trying to
> multitask QSOs, and transmissions in RTTY are pretty much a rote
> sequence of pushing F-keys.? I fail to see a significant distinction here.
>
> So please clue me in ... what makes RTTY so much more "real radio" than
> FT8 or FT4 for contesting and working DXpeditions?? Last I checked this
> wasn't the ragchew reflector.
>
> Dave?? AB7E
>
>
>
> On 7/23/2019 10:36 AM, Courtney Judd wrote:
> > hello Dennis, I enjoyed your email and think it was spot on. I don't
> > use ft8/4 and don't think they should be allowed .... maybe they
> > should have their own contests. I spent quite amount of time in this
> > contest and came up very short of mults compared to those that added
> > ft8. I am not pleased you could say. 90% of my qso's were ssb and 10%
> > on CW... 0% ft8. I ended up with 711 qso's and 160 grids as SB 6 HP. I
> > had one Euro call me on SSB. I had pretty good prop for most
> > directions except for the North and mid west. Another bug that bothers
> > me to no end is DX-peditions that do ft8 at the expense of RTTY.? They
> > get NO financial support from me. OK, call me a grumpy old man but I
> > just don't see ft/8 as real radio.... Just my 2 cents! 73's Cort K4WI
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:26:19 -0300
> From: "Mike Smith VE9AA" <ve9aa at nbnet.nb.ca>
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] possible changes for CQ VHF Contest
> Message-ID: <001601d5419d$46442680$d2cc7380$@nbnet.nb.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> My sentiments agree with most of the previous posters.
>
>
>
> I think there should be a "Digital VHF" contest and then another one for
> CW/SSB.perhaps broken out to either
>
> CW or SSB. *(just like many HF multimode contests)
>
>
>
> I won't ever use the FT modes.even if it means missing a new country on 6m.
>
>
>
> By the same token, I think those that do use it should have their own
> contest..not take away from my CW (and SSB) enjoyment.
>
>
>
> For decades, 6m was my favorite band..now, 98% of the activity is on
> FT8.which is cool, (do what you want) but don't ruin the contests for us CW
> stalwarts too.
>
>
>
> Harumph ! ;-)
>
>
>
> Mike VE9AA FN66
>
>
>
> Mike, Coreen & Corey
>
> Keswick Ridge, NB
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 199, Issue 20
> *******************************************
>
--
Everett Curry W6ABM
Chair, SEA-PAC™ 2019 Committee
Assistant Section Manager/Oregon
ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio™
Phone: (503) 522-7142
Email: w6abm at arrl.net
__________________
Think about this:
*My goal wasn't to make a ton of money. It was to build good computers.*
* -- Steve Wozniak*
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list