[WriteLog] WriteLog Digest, Vol 65, Issue 26

Wed May 28 18:20:18 EDT 2008

Hi Gordon,
Sorry about that - now see the error of my ways !!. A hangover fron last 
weekend's WPX.

73
John. ZL1BHQ
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <writelog-request at contesting.com>
To: <writelog at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 4:00 AM
Subject: WriteLog Digest, Vol 65, Issue 26

> Send WriteLog mailing list submissions to
> writelog at contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> writelog-request at contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> writelog-owner at contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WriteLog digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: WL Sound Files (Gary AL9A)
>   2. SETTING WL WITH FT2000 (John and Mary Powell)
>   3. Re: SETTING WL WITH FT2000 (N6WK)
>   4. CQ WPX Cabrillo file (Gary AL9A)
>   5. Re: CQ WPX Cabrillo file (Rick Lindquist)
>   6. Reverse CW (Art Searle W2NRA)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:10:46 -0800
> From: "Gary AL9A" <al9a at mtaonline.net>
> Subject: Re: [WriteLog] WL Sound Files
> To: <writelog at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <9B5668FAF8AB43B8A51A0AA8B6721F36 at AL9APC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Bryan,
>
> I don't think the earlier version of WL you are running is the problem.
> I've used audio files for years through various versions without a 
> problem.
> My money is still on something different in the audio files you've 
> recorded.
> For instance, if some were created with Windows Sound Recorder and others
> with Audacity there is probably a difference between the sampling rates 
> that
> WL can't handle.  ALL wav files must have the same sampling and bit rates
> for WL to play them properly.
>
> 73,
> Gary AL9A
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Bryan Swadener" <bswadener at yahoo.com>
> To: <writelog at contesting.com>
> Sent: May 27, 2008 12:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [WriteLog] WL Sound Files
>
>
>> Hi Gary,
>>
>> I wonder if the cause may be that I'm using a somewhat older version
>> (10.41) than you.  What version are you using? If that's the cause, I
>> don't think I want to upgrade just to get that capability.  But, I'd
>> consider upgrading to get other capability, such as more contest modules.
>>
>> Thanks for the tip about numbers... I'll just record 0 thru 9.wav!
>>
>> Vy 73,
>> Bryan WA7PRC
>>
>>
>> --- Gary AL9A wrote:
>>
>>> Nope, it will do call sign prefixes such as WA0 just fine.
>>> I've got all US
>>> call sign prefix and number combos recorded and they work.
>>> AA0, AA1, AA2,
>>> etc.  KA0, KA1, KA2, etc.  I've not tried it, but I
>>> think if you had the
>>> time, patience and hard drive space you could record all
>>> possible call signs
>>> into wav files and they would play.
>>>
>>> Be careful with numbers though.  I tried recording the
>>> first 100 numbers so
>>> that they would sound better than the parsed string of
>>> individual numbers.
>>> It worked great for the first hundred qso's, but then
>>> when I worked number
>>> 101, for which I did not have a recorded wav file, WL sent
>>> the qso number as
>>> "ten one", not "one zero one"!  I had
>>> to take a time out and delete all the
>>> offending wav files so they wouldn't screw everything
>>> up for the rest of the
>>> contest!
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Gary AL9A
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: "Bryan Swadener" <bswadener at yahoo.com>
>>> To: <writelog at contesting.com>
>>> Sent: May 25, 2008 10:04 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [WriteLog] WL Sound Files
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Yeah it could be that it doesn't do combinations
>>> > of more than /two/ letters.
>>> >
>>> > Bryan WA7PRC
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WriteLog mailing list
>> WriteLog at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
>> WriteLog on the web:  http://www.writelog.com/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 14:11:11 +1200
> From: John and Mary Powell <zl1bhq at paradise.net.nz>
> Subject: [WriteLog] SETTING WL WITH FT2000
> To: writelog at contesting.com
> Message-ID: <008001c8c06b$69f9c770$0e06f6d2 at itzibitzi>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Gordon,
> Try setting the LPT Port 1 for CW - that is what is keying the rig, not 
> the Serial Port.
> Good Luck with the installation.
>
> 73
> John. ZL1BHQ
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 20:20:49 -0700
> From: N6WK <n6wk at n6wk.com>
> Subject: Re: [WriteLog] SETTING WL WITH FT2000
> To: writelog at contesting.com
> Message-ID: <483CCF91.1070607 at n6wk.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi John,
>  The LPT port has Nothing connected to it. It is the COM port that is
> doing the keying and sending the PTT.
> I have it figured out now.
> Thanks,
> Gordon
> N6WK
>
>
>
> John and Mary Powell wrote:
>> Hi Gordon,
>> Try setting the LPT Port 1 for CW - that is what is keying the rig, not 
>> the Serial Port.
>> Good Luck with the installation.
>>
>> 73
>> John. ZL1BHQ
>> _______________________________________________
>> WriteLog mailing list
>> WriteLog at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
>> WriteLog on the web:  http://www.writelog.com/
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 23:12:48 -0800
> From: "Gary AL9A" <al9a at mtaonline.net>
> Subject: [WriteLog] CQ WPX Cabrillo file
> To: "Writelog Reflector" <writelog at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <524BC0846120425BAFC24D0C1D5D04A0 at AL9APC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> I just created a Cabrillo file for the CQ WPX CW contest using WL V10.67B.
> This version uses the new 3.0 Cabrillo format.  When creating the Cabrillo
> file I noticed WL did not offer a choice of Single-Op-Assisted in the
> category drop boxes.  I created the file using just Single-Op All High and
> then went into the file and edited the category by adding "-Assisted". 
> When
> I submitted the log I quickly got a notice from the contest robot that it
> was accepted without a problem.  My question is, Why doesn't WL offer the
> correct category options in the drop boxes?  Is this a bug in the new 3.0
> Cabrillo format?
>
> 73,
> Gary AL9A
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:03:22 -0400
> From: "Rick Lindquist" <n1rl at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [WriteLog] CQ WPX Cabrillo file
> To: "'Gary AL9A'" <al9a at mtaonline.net>, "'Writelog Reflector'"
> <writelog at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <004701c8c0c3$35c926f0$6501a8c0 at RLHOME>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> It may also have been a bug in v 10.65C, which I'm still using. Several of
> its pulldown menus for exporting into Cabrillo (still 2.0 for this version
> of WL) were blank. When I checked the Cabrillo file WriteLog had created,
> those fields weren't just blank, the info/data categories were missing
> altogether! It didn't even create a "Start of Log" header!
>
> I looked up the spec for Cabrillo 3.0 and manually created the proper 
> header
> for that version, and the robot accepted it first try.
>
> The latest version of CT-Win on my old laptop did a great job with this;
> were it not for the lack of an LPT port on my new machine, I'd still be
> using CT-Win, which also sent reliable, error-free CW without having to
> worry about CPU overload (WL definitely was not overloading my new 
> laptop's
> CPU; usage was never more than about 10%, but it glitched all the time,
> unexpectedly, anyway, even after I'd shut down everything else running.
>
> When using CT-Win, I also didn't have to buy extra hardware, and the
> software itself was free - every ham's favorite price.
>
> Ahh, for the "Good Ol' Days" - every ham's favorite place.
>
> 73, Rick, WW3DE (ex-N1RL)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: writelog-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:writelog-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Gary AL9A
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 3:13 AM
> To: Writelog Reflector
> Subject: [WriteLog] CQ WPX Cabrillo file
>
> I just created a Cabrillo file for the CQ WPX CW contest using WL V10.67B.
> This version uses the new 3.0 Cabrillo format.  When creating the Cabrillo
> file I noticed WL did not offer a choice of Single-Op-Assisted in the
> category drop boxes.  I created the file using just Single-Op All High and
> then went into the file and edited the category by adding "-Assisted". 
> When
>
> I submitted the log I quickly got a notice from the contest robot that it
> was accepted without a problem.  My question is, Why doesn't WL offer the
> correct category options in the drop boxes?  Is this a bug in the new 3.0
> Cabrillo format?
>
> 73,
> Gary AL9A
>
> _______________________________________________
> WriteLog mailing list
> WriteLog at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
> WriteLog on the web:  http://www.writelog.com/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:59:25 -0400
> From: Art Searle W2NRA <w2nra at optonline.net>
> Subject: [WriteLog] Reverse CW
> To: WriteLog at contesting.com
> Message-ID: <60AB4124814A4249AA7594576CF70B17 at w2nra>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
> reply-type=original
>
> I'm sure I asked this question before but I cannot find the answer.  How 
> do
> you set Reverse CW (Lower side-band CW) in Writelog?
>
> 73 Art W2NRA
> "Keep to the Code!"
> w2nra.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WriteLog mailing list
> WriteLog at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
>
>
> End of WriteLog Digest, Vol 65, Issue 26
> ****************************************
> 