[ct-user] CT9.84 CRTL F1/F2, MODE SELECT problem for VHF SS TST
alsopb
alsopb at gloryroad.net
Tue Jan 28 12:07:40 EST 2003
Frank,
As I stated in my intial note, my knowledge of VHF contesting is
limited.
Thanks for the information. It appears that big gun stations do make
lots of contacts. Looking at the QST results, more typical stations
make 100-200 contacts.
The rig control issue is essential here. At least for HF contesters,
it and automatic dup checking are THE reasons computer logging is so
useful. You clearly don't want automation that will overwrite modes
you enter manually. It is easy to see that CT could want to log your
PSK or digital QSO as SSB.
How many VHF rigs have computer control capabilities and are CT
supported is another issue. Transverters also introduce another fly
in the ointment.
There used to be a "note" capability in CT to eliminate the need for
post it type notes. That may be another way to keep track of
exceptions.
I still don't know if we are talking about 2 big guns or 200.
73 de Brian/K3KO
Frank Potts wrote:
>
> Sorry for taking so long to reply. It was a very busy weekend,
> including an effort in the 160 contest (with W1QA).
> I'll do my best to comment on your questions/notes below. My feelings
> are the same as Bob K1VU.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> >I'm reading this thread and I'm perplexed.
> >
> >1) How many people actually are using CT for VHF contests? I keep
> >hearing that there is a real problem with activity? What are the
> >rates obtained?
>
> I can't tell you how many people use CT for VHF contests. We use it
> for our multi-op network. I have been using it for VHF (and HF) for
> 8 or 9 years, maybe more.
> As for activity, our scores have essentially stayed the same or
> increased over the years. Sometimes activity seems like it's at an
> all time high, other times I wonder why I invested all the time and
> money into it. I suspect if you look at the number of logs received at
> the ARRL for each contest that there has actually been an increase
> in activity in recent years. We have made as many as 2000 QSO's
> on the "lower four bands" in the September VHF QSO party
> (generally considered to be the least popular of the three VHF and
> up contests sponsored by the ARRL). Even higher QSO totals are
> reachable with better 6 meter conditions.
> Rates vary. During 6 meter openings rates approach those
> obtained on HF. I have seen 100/hrs on 2 meters. I have had
> back to back "zero" hours on 222 & 432. I have also made
> 400 QSO's on 432 alone over a contest weekend. Definitely
> different than HF.
>
> >2) If you do use CT, do you use rig control? If so how in the world
> >is CT going to know the difference in mode other than CW, SSB, digital
> >or FM? Modes like WSJT, PSK, perhaps RTTY and moonbounce are done
> >using the rig in other modes. That means you have to somehow enter
> >the info manually and somehow override what CT would determine. If
> >you don't use rig control, are you really manually entering all the
> >bands/frequencies? Perhaps you use 15 different radios for the VHF
> >bands and have to do this. I don't know.
>
> To date, I have not used rig control but it is on the list of things to do.
> We have been changing the mode manually (Ctrl/F1,F2) and tracking
> QSO mode for post contest evaluation to determine strategy for the
> next contest. Sure I would like CT to include options for WSJT &
> moonbounce (great suggestion Bob). I've made over 30 random 432
> moonbounce QSO's in some VHF contests).
> Typical multiband VHF station configurations do use more than one
> radio. It may not be unusual for some folks to be using three or more
> radios (not including the FM boxes).
>
> >3) In the normal run of the mill VHF contest, just how many
> >digital/moonbounce/WSJT QSO's do you guys make? What is the rate?
> >Once per minute, once very ten minutes, once per hour or once per
> >day? My guess is that they are few and far apart.
>
> As I stated above, I have made 30+ EME contacts during a VHF
> contest. So far our digital QSO totals have been very low, perhaps
> 5-10 on 2 & 6 meters but these numbers are sure to grow rapidly
> over the next several years. Obviously QSO's made on these modes
> take more time and slow the rate way down. Still, even EME QSO's
> can be made in two or three minutes.
>
> >It sounds like you're asking Ken to automate something rare that could
> >easily be noted on a post-it note with pen and pencil and manually
> >entered into your more detailed logging program later. Even HF
> >contesters keep a sheet of "exceptions" for later use.
>
> Yes this can be done, in fact that is what I did in the January VHF
> SS two weekends ago. It's just easier to enter it properly in the
> first place and be done with it before I loose my post-it note.
> Yes this may be (is) a selfish request and I will understand if it is
> not corrected but it was a working function (manual logging mode
> change) in previous versions.
>
> >I know there are some pretty sophisticated VHF contest only programs
> >out there. Do any of them do what you want?
>
> There are some very good logging programs available for VHF
> only contests. To the best of my knowledge they fall short when
> it comes to networking. Typically our multi-op efforts are spread
> out over about 100 yards and an efficient network system is
> essential.
>
> Thanks for taking the time and asking some very appropriate
> questions. I hope that I have answered some of them.
>
> Frank Potts NC1I
>
> Just curious.
> >
> >73 de Brian/K3KO
> >
> >R Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, I agree. I like to keep track of the mode for many reasons,
> >> especially when I transfer the CT results into my main logging program.
> >>
> >> I wish we could talk Ken into adding a "D column" for Digital QSO's
> >> with the wide spread use of modes like WSJT, PSK31, etc. (Maybe "E"
> >> for EME contacts. What say, Frank NC1I)
> >>
> >> Maybe all of the VHF users should ask him to do so. After all Ken
> >> just added all of the bands between 10G and LIGHT to CT.
> >>
> >> 73
> >> Bob, K1VU
> >> FN42ma
> >>
> >> At 06:48 1/23/2003 , you wrote:
> >> >At 05:16 AM 1/23/03 -0600, Bob Naumann - N5NJ wrote:
> >> > >>From the rules: " Stations may be worked for credit only once per
> band from
> >> > >any given grid square, regardless of mode. "
> >> > >
> >> > >According to this, there's no reason to have mode at all in ARRL VHF
> >> > >contests as part of the log - nevermind whether it's FM or SSB.
> >> > >
> >> > >I don't have any problem with logging FM, CW or SSB. The point is
> that it's
> >> > >not required.
> >> >
> >> >It is not required by the rules but to be accurate I would like to know
> what type of Q it is. My reasons include, knowing what the distribution of
> FM vs. SSB vs. CW Q's in the contest. I think someone also pointed this
> out. It's nice to know that the extra effort to put up that FM antenna
> yields you some points. Or to make sure you check some of the lower
> frequencies for CW. Or to know that you could only complete the Q on CW as
> the path margin didn't allow SSB. Another reason is for accurate log
> keeping and QSL'ing. I would like to know the mode so that when I send a
> card, it can reflect the proper mode. The FCC doesn't require you to log
> anymore, but I still log just about everything, especially transferring my
> contest logs to my station log. That requires emission type.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >N5NJ
> >> > >
> >> > >----- Original Message -----
> >> > >From: "R Johnson" <k1vu at tmlp.com>
> >> > >To: <don at hfradio.com>; "Jim Reisert AD1C" <jjreisert at alum.mit.edu>;
> >> > ><CT-User at contesting.com>
> >> > >Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 7:29 PM
> >> > >Subject: RE: [ct-user] CT9.84 CRTL F1/F2, MODE SELECT problem for VHF
> SS TST
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >> Yes, Don your right after a fashion !!! They are both Phone vs. CW
> !!!
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The ARRL VHF Contests broke the "Phone" category down into SSB and
> FM
> >> > >Simplex
> >> > >> in order to attract the some of the new "No-Code" licensees into VHF
> >> > >CONTESTING.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> If you bring up anyone of the vhf contests you will see that the
> summary
> >> > >window
> >> > >> shows CW SSB FM as viable categories.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Check it out.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 73
> >> > >> Bob, K1VU
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> into At 19:14 1/22/2003 , Don Melcher wrote:
> >> > >> >Maybe I am missing something here - but isn't, for the purpose of a
> >> > >contest,
> >> > >> >FM & SSB considered the same "mode" - Phone (and digital RTTY)?
> What mode
> >> > >> >does CT THINK you're in when you select FM on the radio???
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >Don Melcher
> >> > >> >Owner - HF Radio On Board
> >> > >> >www.hfradio.com
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> > >> >From: ct-user-bounces at contesting.com
> >> > >> >[mailto:ct-user-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of R Johnson
> >> > >> >Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 3:37 PM
> >> > >> >To: Jim Reisert AD1C; CT-User at contesting.com
> >> > >> >Subject: Re: [ct-user] CT9.84 CRTL F1/F2, MODE SELECT problem for
> VHF SS
> >> > >> >TST
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >Hi Jim: I tried CT 9.85.001. CRTL F1/F2 still broken. No FM.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >73 Bob, K1VU
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >>
> >> > >> _______________________________________________
> >> > >> CT-User mailing list
> >> > >> CT-User at contesting.com
> >> > >> CT-User-request at contesting.com Subject=unsubscribe to unsubscribe
> >> > >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ct-user
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >_______________________________________________
> >> > >CT-User mailing list
> >> > >CT-User at contesting.com
> >> > >CT-User-request at contesting.com Subject=unsubscribe to unsubscribe
> >> > >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ct-user
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >CT-User mailing list
> >> >CT-User at contesting.com
> >> >CT-User-request at contesting.com Subject=unsubscribe to unsubscribe
> >> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ct-user
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CT-User mailing list
> >> CT-User at contesting.com
> >> CT-User-request at contesting.com Subject=unsubscribe to unsubscribe
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ct-user
> >_______________________________________________
> >CT-User mailing list
> >CT-User at contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ct-user
More information about the CT-User
mailing list