I'm already getting quite a bit of flackola from folks about my point #2 in
the proposed FCC letter:
>2. I would like to see each ham have a callsign that indicates his/her
>class of license. Since the mechanism is in place for a specific pattern
>of callsigns per class of license, let's use it. This would apply
>immediately to requests for specific calls, and eventually to everyone upon
>renewal of their present license.
So, in anticipation of more, let me provide the following rationale:
My thought is that we should have a new vision of what is "Normal" in terms
of callsign assignment. At the moment, the present callsign assignment
system will
result in two things:
--all previously assigned calls will die with their owner, and
--eventually all new licensees (and when taken to the extreme, all
hams) will have 2x3 calls regardless of their class of license (because we
run out of everything else first).
If the "new" definition of Normal is:
--when you upgrade, you get a new call,
--when you move call districts, you get a new call,
then the long term view is that:
--everyone eventually has a call that indicates operating
privileges, and
--everyone eventually has a call that reflects where they live.
These seem like desirable goals to me. No doubt many people would want to
be grandfathered/mothered to keep their present calls, and that's fine.
But if a new callsign system is to be implemented, then let's do it with a
50-year view of what the callsign structure should be.
--Jim, K6ZH
>From Scott A Stembaugh <n9ljx@ecn.purdue.edu> Sat Jan 29 00:07:15 1994
From: Scott A Stembaugh <n9ljx@ecn.purdue.edu> (Scott A Stembaugh)
Subject: more regional scoring
Message-ID: <9401290007.AA21126@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
In message <"GGJE-5895-2889/27"*/PN=ERIC.L.SCACE/O=ADN/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@spri
nt.com> you write:
>
>Gang --
>
> Leave some part of the writeup in QST... but also publish an additional
>or expanded issue of NCJ with the rest of the details, and mail that issue
>....
>-- Eric
> K3NA
>
>Eric.L.Scace @ ADN.Sprint.Com
>
I have been stewing the same type of idea. I was thinking along the
lines of a yearly 'Contest Supplement' by QST or CQ. I would think that
they could get the advertising revenues to cover such a venture.
Rather thank just mailing it to the ones who submit logs I would like
to see it sent to all subscribers and maybe a few issues on the
newstands. Another way to recruit new contesters.
--Scott N9LJX
D
D
D
to see it sent to all subscribers and on the newstand
>From k2mm@MasPar.COM (John Zapisek) Sat Jan 29 00:38:14 1994
From: k2mm@MasPar.COM (John Zapisek) (John Zapisek)
Subject: Callsign letter to FCC
Message-ID: <9401290038.AA27553@greylock.local>
> I would like to see hams returned to having callsigns that are
> reflective of their call district, i.e. if you move, modify.
This is not a terrific idea. This means that I have to give up my call,
even though I have had it for 15 years. For some people, it would be
even worse. W2IC, were he still alive, would have to give up his call,
because he was in Washington, D.C, when he was struck and killed by a
taxicab. Bummer.
In the late '70's, the distinction between operator and station licenses
was recognized to be a bureaucratic theory with little value in the
context of ham radio. The theory said that you, Mr. Operator, did not
have a callsign; your station did. It was realized that in practice
callsigns were associated *not* with stations, but with people -- many
with the habit of being too often inconveniently un-station-ary.
Sure is nice being able to recognize an old friend after all these
years, even though he may have moved a dozen times in the interim.
But this does come at a price -- more ambuguity in the location inferred
from a station's call. If it really is important for the call to imply
location, why stop at 10 call areas? What sane person would say Montana
and Arizona are in the same area? Maybe callsigns should embed grid
sub-squares -- you'd have to change your call if you moved across town.
Want to know where a station is located? Ask him. Or use a Callbook
server. Or try actually copying his whole exchange ;-)
73. --John/K2MM (in California, but, as per FCC, *not* portable at all)
>From CT1BOH <0006309523@mcimail.com> Fri Jan 28 21:20:00 1994
From: CT1BOH <0006309523@mcimail.com> (CT1BOH)
Subject: TOPGUNS NEEDED
Message-ID: <70940128212007/0006309523PK4EM@mcimail.com>
TOP GUNS NEEDED
We've been talking about change. Let me change the subject and start
talking about the CQ WW.
Calvin Coolidge once said. "Nothing in this world can take the place of
persistance. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful
people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
Education will not: the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan "press on"has solved and
always will solve the problems of the human race".
Somehow while reading this I remember how difficult it was for me to
operate the CQ WW from a DX location/station for the first time.
The major problem for the to be top guns in the CQ WW these days is to
find a station where he can win.
The last decade has been dominated by stations in EA8/CT3, PJ/P4/FY
and HC8. That is three major geographical areas of influence.
What is the consequence. There is a cartel of operators/location , myself
included, who occupy the winning spots. So, serious competition is
restricted to 6 countries/ 6 operators maximum.
So inevitably we have the same winners over and over again.
Changes to be implemented in my view have to follow what K4VX
brilliantly said. No matter what we do we cannot "celebrate the mediocre
while downplaying excellence".
Changes must keep the spirit of the contest that has proven correct for so
many years. We must stimulate excellence that comes from competition.
So how do we solve our problem?
Lets create more places where you can win the contest from.
There are 49 countries in NA and 51 countries in Asia, not to mention the
pacific countries. Yet do you find top guns going to these places?
No... you don't.
Why?
Simply because these to be top guns want success and that will be almost
impossible from those areas more due to the scoring system than because of
geography.
So what's wrong is the scoring system.
Of course these thoughts are not new. But may be it is the time to do
something for the first time.
My purpose is to create more activity, more competition, more excellence
in the end.
What is the bottom line?
The scoring system of the CQ WW should be changed to the following:
QSOs with your country count zero points.
QSOs with other countries count three points
Exception 1: QSOs between USA and VE count 2 points(or 1?)
Exception 2: QSOs Between EU count 1 point.
This solution maintains the spirit of the contest:
It will still promote world wide contacts.
Now try to imagine what would be the next CQ WW with this format.
Activity from the NA Caribbean countries would skyrocket.
Activity from Asia would come back to the levels experience years ago.
Places like YK, OD, 4X, ZC4. 5B4, YA, UD6, UG6, UH8, UI8, UM8,
XV, XW, XU, HS, BY, BV, etc would become winning places or places
with a much better chance to win.
Just imagine hoards of JA operators going all over Asia. Hoards of
European operators going all over Africa and the Middle East and hoards
of NA operators going all over the Caribbean.
Competition and the possibility of winning would increase to levels never
before imagined.
This would attract the DX community more to the contest scene, bringing
new ones to contesting. This would promote activity in the DX spots all
around the world. Everybody can understand the attraction a top gun can
have on the public.
May be Im just dreaming again. But let me do it.
Please don't just read this e-mail. Do something. If we can have this
implemented the difference may consist of leaving one or more things
unsaid. Lets be audacious.
And as I feel like quoting today as Claude Pepper said view this as "a
bicycle. You don't fall unless you stop pedaling".
Jose Carlos Cardoso Nunes, CT1BOH
>From rklein@lobo.rmh.pr1.k12.co.us (Ronald D. Klein) Sat Jan 29 02:45:49 1994
From: rklein@lobo.rmh.pr1.k12.co.us (Ronald D. Klein) (Ronald D. Klein)
Subject: Callsign letter to FCC
Message-ID: <9401290245.AA21364@lobo.rmh.pr1.k12.co.us>
Forwarded message:
> From CQ-Contest-Relay@TGV.COM Fri Jan 28 17:54:46 1994
> X-Listname: Amateur Radio discussion list <CQ-Contest@tgv.com>
> Warnings-To: <>
> Errors-To: CQ-Contest-Relay@TGV.COM
> Sender: CQ-Contest-Relay@TGV.COM
> From: howie cahn <howi@world.std.com>
> Reply-To: howie cahn <howi@world.std.com>
> Subject: Re: Callsign letter to FCC
> To: price@cod.nosc.mil
> Cc: cq-contest@tgv.com
> In-Reply-To: <9401281801.AA10861@cod>
> Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9401281718.A8300-0100000@world.std.com>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Jan 1994 price@cod.nosc.mil wrote:
>
> > 2. I would like to see each ham have a callsign that indicates his/her
> > class of license. Since the mechanism is in place for a specific pattern
> > of callsigns per class of license, let's use it. This would apply
> > immediately to requests for specific calls, and eventually to everyone upon
> > renewal of their present license.
> >
> > 3. I would like to see hams returned to having callsigns that are
> > reflective of their call district, i.e. if you move, modify. Again, this
> > could start with the specific callsign selection program, and eventually to
> > everyone upon renewal.
> >
>
> This would force many people to involuntarily give up long held
> calls. I've had mine for 32 years and have sorta grown attached to it.
> Why should I be penalized for having an Extra. If someone, hearing my
> call, thinks I'm in the wrong part of the band, there are a lot of data
> bases, call books, etc. to check it in. Would you suggest people be
> forced to change their names to reflect their occupation, wealth, or
> race? That would be more efficient too.
>
> -howie, wb2cpu
> wb2cpu@world.std.com
>
I, too have the same problem if this idea is implemented. I have had my call
21 years. It is the 3rd call I have held. There used to be some who though a
WnXXX was a preferred call because it was issued before the K's.
I'm not sure if I will request a 1x2 or not after all these years... if the
proposal allowed a second call, then I'd go for it.
Bottom line - DON'T force folks to change their calls to fit the latest class
designations. Just remember that at one time WnXXX had more "prestige" than do
the reissued 1x2.
(now, let me see if my vfo is rusted in place ... nope, it still moves)
Ron - W0OSK (ex KN0WEP, K0WEP, W5SCA)
>From CT1BOH <0006309523@mcimail.com> Fri Jan 28 22:35:00 1994
From: CT1BOH <0006309523@mcimail.com> (CT1BOH)
Subject: to n7stu overload
Message-ID: <83940128223538/0006309523PK4EM@mcimail.com>
To Robert, N7STU
Hi Robert,
There are no secrets in how to take a station set around the world without
paying overload.
Your case is a little bit different from mine. I normally have about 30 to 40
Kg overload. Quite different from yours 200Kg+.
You can be sure with that kind of excess you will pay heavily.
I strongly suggest you get in touch with the public relations office of the
company you're flying with and apply for a sponsorship. Don't ask for free
tickets (sometimes you can get them), Ask your excess weight be supported
by them and in return publicise their logo on your Qsl card. Show them
examples of air companies Qsl cards.
When flying with excess weight you must have one certainty. Eventually
you will pay. Since 1990 I travelled abroad for 7 CQ WW SSB/CW with
30 to 40 Kg overload. So far I pay only once - about 100 Usd. So I guess
this is great.
I normally check in very early.
I always go to lines where there's a lady.
Be polite and charmfull ( Exception: If in the US act cautiously as this may
be interpreted as sexual harassment...)
Try to chat with then and tell them you are going away to represent your
country in a championship.
Take with you (don't check in) the maximum amount possible without
arising suspicious eyes. In my case this means carrying an heavy Alpha
transformer in one hand a radio in the other a a notebook in my back.
So as you see no big secrets.
Just try to make the most of the little details.
GL hpe cu
Jose Carlos Cardoso Nunes, CT1BOH
>From CT1BOH <0006309523@mcimail.com> Sat Jan 29 11:56:00 1994
From: CT1BOH <0006309523@mcimail.com> (CT1BOH)
Subject: OPEN LOG KP2A/PY0F
Message-ID: <31940129115613/0006309523PK1EM@mcimail.com>
My next subject will be open log policy.
But before I go into that don't forget my proposal on the CQ WW scoring
system changes.
Inthe meantime you can have a look on the BRKDWN of my latest operations
from KP2A and PY0F:
BREAKDOWN QSO/mults KP2A Single Operator
HOUR 160 80 40 20 15 10 HR TOT CUM TOT
0 ..... ..... ..... 380/6 ..... ..... 380/6 380/6
1 . . . 335/4 . . 335/4 715/10
2 . . . 319/15 . . 319/15 1034/25
3 . . 96/22 135/2 . . 231/24 1265/49
4 . 13/6 201/9 . . . 214/15 1479/64
5 . 123/16 79/20 . . . 202/36 1681/100
6 76/8 124/8 . . . . 200/16 1881/116
7 11/1 50/5 70/7 . . . 131/13 2012/129
8 15/0 20/4 96/3 ..... ..... ..... 131/7 2143/136
9 10/2 29/1 54/4 . . . 93/7 2236/143
10 . 64/3 84/4 1/1 . . 149/8 2385/151
11 . . . 29/11 219/35 . 248/46 2633/197
12 . . . . 187/17 38/22 225/39 2858/236
13 . . . . 2/2 290/32 292/34 3150/270
14 . . . . 2/2 269/7 271/9 3421/279
15 . . . . . 321/5 321/5 3742/284
16 ..... ..... ..... ..... 156/8 15/1 171/9 3913/293
17 . . . 1/1 43/4 215/6 259/11 4172/304
18 . . . . 3/2 274/5 277/7 4449/311
19 . . . . 387/5 . 387/5 4836/316
20 . . . 97/13 1/1 55/2 153/16 4989/332
21 . . . . 297/6 10/0 307/6 5296/338
22 . . 28/4 28/1 113/4 2/0 171/9 5467/347
23 . . 15/2 165/4 . . 180/6 5647/353
0 ..... 4/3 88/1 18/5 1/1 1/0 112/10 5759/363
1 81/3 20/2 32/2 . . . 133/7 5892/370
2 5/2 17/1 106/2 . . . 128/5 6020/375
3 51/3 20/3 8/2 . . . 79/8 6099/383
4 . 123/15 . . . . 123/15 6222/398
5 15/4 59/5 2/2 . . . 76/11 6298/409
6 . . 120/8 . . . 120/8 6418/417
7 10/1 35/3 5/0 . . . 50/4 6468/421
8 11/1 6/1 35/1 3/2 ..... ..... 55/5 6523/426
9 . 48/0 14/2 8/5 . . 70/7 6593/433
10 . . 42/0 11/5 58/1 . 111/6 6704/439
11 . . . 7/5 193/6 . 200/11 6904/450
12 . . . . 131/3 55/2 186/5 7090/455
13 . . . 1/0 4/1 200/10 205/11 7295/466
14 . . . 3/3 3/3 186/4 192/10 7487/476
15 . . . . . 106/0 106/0 7593/476
16 ..... ..... ..... 1/0 8/2 49/2 58/4 7651/480
17 . . . . . 182/0 182/0 7833/480
18 . . . . 83/0 133/0 216/0 8049/480
19 . . . 136/6 56/0 57/0 249/6 8298/486
20 . . . . 106/1 128/1 234/2 8532/488
21 . . . 5/3 70/2 91/2 166/7 8698/495
22 . . 1/1 132/3 49/1 . 182/5 8880/500
23 1/0 2/0 24/5 104/2 . . 131/7 9011/507
DAY1 112/11 423/43 723/75 1490/58 1410/86 1489/80 ..... 5647/353
DAY2 174/14 334/33 477/26 429/39 762/21 1188/21 . 3364/154
TOT 286/25 757/76 1200/101 1919/97 2172/107 2677/101 . 9011/507
BREAKDOWN QSO/mults PY0F Single Operator
HOUR 160 80 40 20 15 10 HR TOT CUM TOT
0 ..... 5/5 10/9 134/30 7/6 3/3 159/53 159/53
1 . . . 181/9 . . 181/9 340/62
2 . . 13/2 140/5 . . 153/7 493/69
3 . . 159/26 . . . 159/26 652/95
4 . . 143/4 . . . 143/4 795/99
5 . . 142/3 . . . 142/3 937/102
6 . 100/19 . . . . 100/19 1037/121
7 10/5 52/9 . 16/0 . . 78/14 1115/135
8 ..... 2/0 13/0 14/1 70/23 48/16 147/40 1262/175
9 . . . 11/1 111/11 34/10 156/22 1418/197
10 . . . 8/2 18/5 145/12 171/19 1589/216
11 . . . . 125/11 37/8 162/19 1751/235
12 . . . . 174/12 5/0 179/12 1930/247
13 . . . . 13/0 204/6 217/6 2147/253
14 . . . . 5/1 159/9 164/10 2311/263
15 . . . 1/1 4/4 175/6 180/11 2491/274
16 ..... ..... ..... 1/1 3/3 149/5 153/9 2644/283
17 . . . . 179/1 20/0 199/1 2843/284
18 . . . . 195/3 2/2 197/5 3040/289
19 . . 1/1 30/5 150/2 1/1 182/9 3222/298
20 . 8/2 15/2 88/9 . . 111/13 3333/311
21 . . 1/1 59/3 75/2 3/2 138/8 3471/319
22 . 3/0 2/2 93/3 2/2 . 100/7 3571/326
23 23/7 . 1/1 61/1 1/1 1/1 87/11 3658/337
0 13/5 65/12 ..... ..... ..... ..... 78/17 3736/354
1 4/0 6/1 97/7 . . . 107/8 3843/362
2 1/1 1/1 76/6 33/2 . . 111/10 3954/372
3 1/1 5/0 108/4 . . . 114/5 4068/377
4 3/3 1/1 81/4 5/3 1/1 . 91/12 4159/389
5 . 19/0 53/2 . . . 72/2 4231/391
6 . . 32/0 42/0 . . 74/0 4305/391
7 . . 54/1 41/1 . . 95/2 4400/393
8 ..... 4/0 ..... 51/7 45/1 ..... 100/8 4500/401
9 . . . 17/1 126/1 . 143/2 4643/403
10 . . . 1/1 140/4 2/0 143/5 4786/408
11 . . . 1/1 142/1 1/1 144/3 4930/411
12 . . . . 114/3 1/1 115/4 5045/415
13 . . . 1/1 73/2 42/0 116/3 5161/418
14 . . . . 59/2 59/1 118/3 5279/421
15 . . . . 158/2 . 158/2 5437/423
16 ..... ..... ..... ..... 82/1 64/0 146/1 5583/424
17 . . . 1/0 96/3 19/3 116/6 5699/430
18 . . . 42/4 84/1 . 126/5 5825/435
19 . . 2/0 71/6 18/1 . 91/7 5916/442
20 . . 8/1 57/0 52/0 . 117/1 6033/443
21 . . 27/4 40/0 . . 67/4 6100/447
22 . 4/3 33/3 11/0 1/0 . 49/6 6149/453
23 . 11/3 14/3 2/2 . . 27/8 6176/461
DAY1 33/12 170/35 500/51 837/71 1132/87 986/81 ..... 3658/337
DAY2 22/10 116/21 585/35 416/29 1191/23 188/6 . 2518/124
TOT 55/22 286/56 1085/86 1253/100 2323/110 1174/87 . 6176/461
bye for now
Jose Carlos Cardoso Nunes, CT1BOH
>From James Brooks <0005851359@mcimail.com> Sat Jan 29 14:44:00 1994
From: James Brooks <0005851359@mcimail.com> (James Brooks)
Subject: TOPGUNS
Message-ID: <44940129144444/0005851359NA5EM@mcimail.com>
Hooray! Finally a decent idea on the reflector that deserves applause.
For us here in Asia, most DX contests our logs are generally filled
with Asian (JA) QSO's. Most DX contests, I can hear a dozen or more BY
club stations, 30-40 new BV's and numerous HS and VU participating.
With amateur radio growing at an incredible rate, especially in BV and BY,
contesting in a major worldwide event such as CQWW provides absolutely
no way to reach the top, and thus no real encouragement to continue.
Every year, just for fun and after the contest, I enter my callsign/zone
as a fictious YB - as if I were in a country (12 miles south of here)
just to see what it is like to work all those JA and other Asians with
3 points instead of 1, and just to see what CT will give me as a score.
As you can imagine, the score skyrockets. Just look at the VS6WO breakdown
for 1993 CQWW contests, and you see the problem.
Not to moan and groan here like everyone else, I and others out
here still have fun and still participate. But the scoring system does
favour certain locations above many others, and CT1BOH's comments are
accurate. There would be a renewed interest in contesting, especially
in countries out here with exponential growth in operators (BV,HS,BY,..etc).
All the whining about declining rates of JA operators can be renmewed and
added to by these new countries, which themselves are experiencing such
enourmous gains in personal wealth and political change. Amateur radio is
no longer the foreign, rich or government officer hobby that it was.
While it is naive to say that just a simple change in the score
structure of a contest will change the face and size of amateur radio
worldwide, it is a step forward toward more a balanced contesting formula,
which in the end will benefit everyone. No scoring system can ever be
perfect, but for the success of a worldwide contest, the more interest
and reward for participation, the more the fun.
In fact, if such a radical change were to have an effect on
contesting operations, particularly here in Asia, several recent
moan-and groan topics discussed on this reflector would disappear.
"It's an East Coast Contest" and "Where did all the JA runs go" and
others would eventually change.
Active JA contesters may be declining, but there has never been a
better time to ecourage young and new operators in Asia and elsewhere.
Just a few thoughts from the other side of the Pacific.
James 9V1YC
9V1YC@mcimail.com
>From Jay Townsend <jayt@comtch.iea.com> Sat Jan 29 17:09:57 1994
From: Jay Townsend <jayt@comtch.iea.com> (Jay Townsend)
Subject: ARRL RTTY Roundup Rate at WS7I
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9401290929.A24406-0100000@comtch>
1994 ARRL RTTY ROUNDUP
WS7I -- Single Operator -- Low Power
Time Qso Mult Dupe BandX
1800 - 1859 57 30 1 1
1900 - 1959 40 7 1 1
2000 - 2059 63 11 1 2
2100 - 2159 54 3 2 2
2200 - 2259 43 5 0 3
2300 - 2359 43 3 0 1
0000 - 0059 39 1 3 2
0100 - 0159 54 1 1 1
0200 - 0259 69 0 0 0
0300 - 0359 29 1 0 1
0400 - 0459 19 2 0 4
0500 - 0559 28 1 0 2
0600 - 0648 21 0 0 0
1248 - 1259 13 1 0 0
1300 - 1359 23 1 0 1
1400 - 1459 27 1 1 2
1500 - 1559 32 11 0 0
1600 - 1659 36 8 1 0
1700 - 1759 43 2 0 5
1800 - 1859 42 4 0 4
1900 - 1959 28 3 1 5
2000 - 2059 41 1 0 2
2100 - 2159 40 1 4 3
2200 - 2259 33 1 3 3
2300 - 2359 44 1 4 2
--- --- -- --
961 100 23 47
This was my log breakdown from Montana. Sure points out where I
could improve things.
Jay Townsend, Ws7i < jayt@comtch.iea.com >
>From draperbl <draperbl@smtplink.mdl.sandia.gov> Sat Jan 29 18:24:13 1994
From: draperbl <draperbl@smtplink.mdl.sandia.gov> (draperbl)
Subject: JA decrease, 10m contest
Message-ID: <9401291224.A08662@smtplink.mdl.sandia.gov.>
N2IC's recent posting of JA statistics from a couple of his DX
contest logs made me wonder if I had any complementary data to
share. I don't do much DX contesting from home, but have been
pretty active in the ARRL 10m Contest. Shown below is some info
from two serious (#2/USA and #1/world, respectively) AA5B efforts
from 1980 and 1990 (years with very similar propagation):
YEAR MODE TOTAL QSOs JA QSOs %JA EU QSOs JA/EU RATIO
____ ____ __________ _______ ___ _______ ___________
1980 phone,s/o 2771 450 16% 344 1.3
1990 mixed,m/o 3894 432 11 578 0.7
(K5TA op in '80; AA5B, N5FA, K5TA, K9RS ops in '90)
The comparison certainly isn't very clean (phone vs mixed modes,
single vs multi-op, the 1990 contest had tons of novice/tech QSOs,
etc.), but the JA downward trend seems fairly clear. In just one
decade, the JA QSO percentage decreased by a big chunk and the JA-
to-Europe ratio fell by nearly a factor of two! In a great year
like '90, it's wonderful to have the very nice European openings.
But in the marginal years when the Europeans disappear for those
of us out here in the west but continue to be very workable on the
east coast, the JAs no longer offer much in the way of
compensation. Still one of my favorite contests, anyway!
73,
Bruce AA5B
draperbl@mdlchtm.eece.unm.edu
>From Bruce Sawyer" <sawyer@twg.com Sat Jan 29 23:30:29 1994
From: Bruce Sawyer" <sawyer@twg.com (Bruce Sawyer)
Subject: CT 8.52
Message-ID: <9401292330.AA08340@eco.twg.com>
A couple of hours into the CQ-160 contest last night I went to do a check
partial and got only a blank display. In fact, nothing I did ever got me
anything on a check partial display. This was with the latest and greatest
8.52 I had picked up from the CT-BBS a week or so before and never bothered
to test before the contest. If this was operator error (the check partial,
not the idea of using unproven software in a contest for the first time) I
can't see how possible. Natch, I overwrote my old CT version 8. Just as
point of interest, I discovered (2 a.m., local time) that the CT-BBS was
open for business in the middle of the contest, but there was nothing new
there. 8.52 is still the most recent.
To finish the anecdote, I then reloaded from my original floppies and got
back 8.42. I started it up on my log and promptly hung up at the very first
contact I tried to log. The problem was "Icom radio not responding", and
when I went back to the setup screen I saw it thought I was using an Icom
765 instead of the 761 I had initially selected. Apparently there was a new
radio added to the menu somewhere between 8.42 and 8.52 and the rig
encodings all got bumped by one. All this made CQ160 a little more exciting
then normal for middle of the night California.
Moral:
I think 8.52 broke check partial.
Always check out a new version of CT before the contest.
Switching CT versions in the middle of a contest may not be as
straightforward as you would like to believe.
de Bruce/AA6KX
|