[PaQSO] RE: QRP, Mults, Scoring, et al
Allen S. Huber
ash at allenhuber.com
Thu Nov 1 19:31:10 EST 2007
Goody's dream of CSDL is actually something I've thought of, although
while running the concept around in my mind it never had a catchy name
like that. I work with Web apps, XML and all that, and have never heard
of any existing markup such as this, although the world is full of
obscure markup definitions most of us will never come across. As Goody
noted, it would be coupled with a program whose functionality is
entirely defined by the language, While it might take some work, it
should be possible to retrofit existing apps. But I believe before it
is adopted by anyone a testbed app would be required to demonstrate the
feasibility of all this. I'd guess interface cosmetics (colors,
positions of things, font sizes, etc.) could be customized by the user
since they are entirely separate from functionality. If no such
language currently exists and anyone is really interested in further
investigation to this, please let me know!
73, Allen, WG3E
-----Original Message-----
From: paqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:paqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of
paqso-request at mailman.qth.net
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:51 PM
To: paqso at mailman.qth.net
Subject: PaQSO Digest, Vol 43, Issue 2
Send PaQSO mailing list submissions to
paqso at mailman.qth.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
paqso-request at mailman.qth.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
paqso-owner at mailman.qth.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of PaQSO digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Only the required power (Duane, WV2B)
2. Re: Only the required power (emiske at comcast.net)
3. (no subject) (cliff)
4. RE: QRP, Mults, Scoring, et al (Bob Davis)
5. RE: RE: QRP, Mults, Scoring, et al (John Bednar)
6. RE: PA QSO Party Software (Ron Notarius W3WN)
7. RE: Ch-ch-ch-ch-CHANGES! (Ron Notarius W3WN)
8. Re: RE: QRP, Mults, Scoring, et al (Goody K3NG)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 16:37:17 GMT
From: "Duane, WV2B" <wv2b at juno.com>
Subject: [PaQSO] Only the required power
To: PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
Message-ID: <20071101.123717.2060.0 at webmail15.dca.untd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi Folks,
I just wanted to comment on the thought that every station in the qso
party was in vioaltion of the FCC rule regarding use of the minimum
neccessary power. The application mentioned was a somewhat simplistic
view {perhaps that was intentional to make a point?}. That particular
rule is not as black and white as it may at first seem, and is open to
interpretation.
For example: QRO may not be necessary to work the guy in the next county
on 40 Meters when I call cq in the party. But, I also desire to attract
callers from the out of state areas as well. The out of state guy in MN
may not hear me with low power, but may be workable with high power. My
desired communication is with the weak, far away stations as well.
In addition, I wish to be be able to stay on a frequency and call cq and
answer callers. QRO may not be needed to exchange reports with the guy
in the next county on a clear frequency. But, in order to stay on a
frequency and hold it, and not be crowded out by others moving in too
close for me to hear respondents, using qro may be a necessity to carry
out the desired communications.
I can speak from experience that when I have relinquished a calling
frequency to a mobile or a lower power station, it is generally not very
long before the station is blasted off the frequency, even though it was
clear when I gave it to him.
So, it is not a simple black and white rule. The qrpers may be able to
cq sometimes, especially now that activity is down, and the bands larger
than years past. But, they likely have a very difficult time trying to
find a workable frequency, and probably don't hold it for bery long.
Some FCC rules are black and white, others are open to inerpretation.
Even for the seemingly black and white rules I have heard every excuse
in the book why it didn't apply to someone {I only did it for a short
time, everyone else was doing it too, it was not serious, etc.}.
So, I don't think a blanket condemnation is in order regarding this
particular rule. Of course, others are welcome to disagree with me.
73, Duane, WV2B
"The reward of a thing well done is to have done it."-
Ralph Waldo Emerson
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:05:11 +0000
From: emiske at comcast.net
Subject: Re: [PaQSO] Only the required power
To: paqso at mailman.qth.net (Pa QSO Party Reflector)
Message-ID:
<110120071705.26390.472A0747000C8E5F0000671622155754740A059C07030A at comca
st.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Absolutely.
My thought when reading the comment and the rule was, "so, I should
start each contest QSO off with asking how strong is my signal, then
turning down the power until the other station can just resonably hear
me, and then the other station does the same, then we exchange our
contest information, then I return to whatever power level I am
operating for the contest, and call CQ again"......I don't think so.
Ed/WA3SES
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Duane, WV2B" <wv2b at juno.com>
>
> Hi Folks,
> I just wanted to comment on the thought that every station in the qso
party was
> in vioaltion of the FCC rule regarding use of the minimum neccessary
power. The
> application mentioned was a somewhat simplistic view {perhaps that was
> intentional to make a point?}. That particular rule is not as black
and white as
> it may at first seem, and is open to interpretation.
> For example: QRO may not be necessary to work the guy in the next
county on 40
> Meters when I call cq in the party. But, I also desire to attract
callers from
> the out of state areas as well. The out of state guy in MN may not
hear me with
> low power, but may be workable with high power. My desired
communication is with
> the weak, far away stations as well.
> In addition, I wish to be be able to stay on a frequency and call cq
and answer
> callers. QRO may not be needed to exchange reports with the guy in the
next
> county on a clear frequency. But, in order to stay on a frequency and
hold it,
> and not be crowded out by others moving in too close for me to hear
respondents,
> using qro may be a necessity to carry out the desired communications.
> I can speak from experience that when I have relinquished a calling
frequency to
> a mobile or a lower power station, it is generally not very long
before the
> station is blasted off the frequency, even though it was clear when I
gave it to
> him.
> So, it is not a simple black and white rule. The qrpers may be able to
cq
> sometimes, especially now that activity is down, and the bands larger
than years
> past. But, they likely have a very difficult time trying to find a
workable
> frequency, and probably don't hold it for bery long.
> Some FCC rules are black and white, others are open to inerpretation.
Even for
> the seemingly black and white rules I have heard every excuse in the
book why it
> didn't apply to someone {I only did it for a short time, everyone else
was doing
> it too, it was not serious, etc.}.
> So, I don't think a blanket condemnation is in order regarding this
particular
> rule. Of course, others are welcome to disagree with me.
> 73, Duane, WV2B
>
> "The reward of a thing well done is to have done it."-
> Ralph Waldo Emerson
> _______________________________________________
> PaQSO mailing list
> PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:30:38 -0400
From: "cliff" <retssd1 at verizon.net>
Subject: [PaQSO] (no subject)
To: <paqso at mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <002101c81cac$ec383b80$2f01a8c0 at CLIFF>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
test
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 14:10:24 -0500
From: "Bob Davis" <bob at reconstructinghistory.com>
Subject: [PaQSO] RE: QRP, Mults, Scoring, et al
To: <paqso at mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <011a01c81cba$dec5aa10$5a801d0a at partsxgmcfsjjn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
K3CT wrote:
I'm not in favor of changing the PaQSO Party scoring for any contest
program. If the scoring is changed, it should be done for other
reasons. Most, if not all, contest sponsors accept logs in Cabrillo
format and calculate the score to their rules with their log
checking software. You have to admit that the days of dupe sheets
and paper summary sheets are long gone.
>>>
With respect, no one need admit anything of the kind, *especially* if
we're
referring to PAQP. PAQP is one of the few contests remaining which
require
actual dead trees. Have a look at the log submission requirements. If
Nittany ARC accepts Cabrillo, it's news to me.
One cannot gloss over a simple fact: The major contest programs don't
support PAQP because of the non-standard (I was about to write "wierd")
scoring structure, which makes generating accurate log output a major
PITA.
Thus, we can safely call "herculean" the efforts of people like WB3W
(who
continues to support and develop his product) and KA3JWE (who, last I
heard,
doesn't).
>>>
Likewise, if the Canadian section list is changed, it should be
changed because sections were split not because some programs didn't
log the VE sections listed in the rules.
>>>
But if the case is that the PAQP sections don't jibe with the RAC
sections
as used in other larger contests, where is the impetus for software
developers to bodge-job their product just to satisfy PAQP? It's just
plain
*simpler* to adjust the sections in the PAQP Rules than expect software
developers - who are developing contest software in their spare time -
to
juggle code. Let's face it - the people who participate in PAQP are a
small
minority compared to, say, CQWW or Sweepstakes. So if Sweepstakes uses
RAC
sections a certain way, the developer spends his time wisely and makes
his
program recognize that section list. Why would he spend his time making
*another* section list for some comparatively piddly little contest? If
you
were he, to which customer would *you* give priority?
I'm not advocating change for change's sake. That way lies madness.
I'm
advocating certain subtle changes to make things easier for the
participants. That has the potential to bring more participants into
the
PAQP, which has all manner of wonderful benefits, like greater
participation
in and perpetuation of a contest we all enjoy immensely.
Let's do a compare-and-contrast exercise.
Option 1. You fire up your favourite contest logger and select "PA QSO
Party". Operate. After the contest, you have the application generate
a
perfect log, which, once you email the output to NARC, completes your
participation. Everything happens exactly the same way as with every
other
contest you operate.
Option 2. You download an additional application (one of the dedicated
PAQP
loggers) several days/weeks before PAQP and adjust yourself to the
software
learning curve. Operate. Post-contest, generate the app's proprietary
log
output, print it, stick it into an envelope, fill out your summary
sheet,
print that, stuff it into the same or another envelope, stick stamps on
it/them, and mail it all off to NARC.
Option 1 is where I'd like to see the PAQP go. Option 2 is what we have
now. The question is: Which is simpler? You make the call.
Cheers,
Bob NQ3X
http://nq3x.livejournal.com
No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, an
inconceivably large number of electrons was terribly inconvenienced.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:54:10 -0400
From: "John Bednar" <k3ct at verizon.net>
Subject: RE: [PaQSO] RE: QRP, Mults, Scoring, et al
To: <paqso at mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <000c01c81cc0$f8a5c090$e9f141b0$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Bob,
I believe I understand the rules and what is required for log
submission.
I did not state in my email that the PaQSO Party rules accepts
Cabrillo. But, if I remember correctly, Mike did post a message
earlier saying that submitting a Cabrillo file is OK this year.
On the subject of dupe sheets...really. Dupe sheets were used before
computer logging existed so you didn't call the same station more
than once. The early computer logging output sheets similar to the
hand written sheets. Now it is a thing of the past with computer
dupe checking and sponsor log checking. I just made a suggestion
that they be eliminated. If the PaQSO Party sponsors want to keep
them, it's ok with me. Is there a program that supports PaQSO Party
and prints a real dupe sheet?
You missed the point of the VE section comment. The current VE
section list does not cover all Canadian sections and Territories.
Now that you are aware of this, I'm sure you agree that some sort of
rules clarification is needed. As I said, this decision should be
made without regard to what programs are using now. I realize there
are impacts to existing records.
John
k3ct at verizon.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: paqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:paqso-
> bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Bob Davis
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 3:10 PM
> To: paqso at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: [PaQSO] RE: QRP, Mults, Scoring, et al
>
> K3CT wrote:
>
> I'm not in favor of changing the PaQSO Party scoring for any
> contest
> program. If the scoring is changed, it should be done for other
> reasons. Most, if not all, contest sponsors accept logs in
> Cabrillo
> format and calculate the score to their rules with their log
> checking software. You have to admit that the days of dupe
> sheets
> and paper summary sheets are long gone.
> >>>
>
> With respect, no one need admit anything of the kind,
> *especially* if we're
> referring to PAQP. PAQP is one of the few contests remaining
> which require
> actual dead trees. Have a look at the log submission
> requirements. If
> Nittany ARC accepts Cabrillo, it's news to me.
>
> One cannot gloss over a simple fact: The major contest programs
> don't
> support PAQP because of the non-standard (I was about to write
> "wierd")
> scoring structure, which makes generating accurate log output a
> major PITA.
> Thus, we can safely call "herculean" the efforts of people like
> WB3W (who
> continues to support and develop his product) and KA3JWE (who,
> last I heard,
> doesn't).
>
> >>>
> Likewise, if the Canadian section list is changed, it should be
> changed because sections were split not because some programs
> didn't
> log the VE sections listed in the rules.
> >>>
>
> But if the case is that the PAQP sections don't jibe with the
> RAC sections
> as used in other larger contests, where is the impetus for
> software
> developers to bodge-job their product just to satisfy PAQP?
> It's just plain
> *simpler* to adjust the sections in the PAQP Rules than expect
> software
> developers - who are developing contest software in their spare
> time - to
> juggle code. Let's face it - the people who participate in
> PAQP are a small
> minority compared to, say, CQWW or Sweepstakes. So if
> Sweepstakes uses RAC
> sections a certain way, the developer spends his time wisely
> and makes his
> program recognize that section list. Why would he spend his
> time making
> *another* section list for some comparatively piddly little
> contest? If you
> were he, to which customer would *you* give priority?
>
> I'm not advocating change for change's sake. That way lies
> madness. I'm
> advocating certain subtle changes to make things easier for the
> participants. That has the potential to bring more
> participants into the
> PAQP, which has all manner of wonderful benefits, like greater
> participation
> in and perpetuation of a contest we all enjoy immensely.
>
> Let's do a compare-and-contrast exercise.
>
> Option 1. You fire up your favourite contest logger and select
> "PA QSO
> Party". Operate. After the contest, you have the application
> generate a
> perfect log, which, once you email the output to NARC,
> completes your
> participation. Everything happens exactly the same way as with
> every other
> contest you operate.
>
> Option 2. You download an additional application (one of the
> dedicated PAQP
> loggers) several days/weeks before PAQP and adjust yourself to
> the software
> learning curve. Operate. Post-contest, generate the app's
> proprietary log
> output, print it, stick it into an envelope, fill out your
> summary sheet,
> print that, stuff it into the same or another envelope, stick
> stamps on
> it/them, and mail it all off to NARC.
>
> Option 1 is where I'd like to see the PAQP go. Option 2 is
> what we have
> now. The question is: Which is simpler? You make the call.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bob NQ3X
>
> http://nq3x.livejournal.com
>
> No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However,
> an
> inconceivably large number of electrons was terribly
> inconvenienced.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PaQSO mailing list
> PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:23:57 -0400
From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
Subject: RE: [PaQSO] PA QSO Party Software
To: "PA QSO Party" <paqso at mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <NKBBLNDDGMBDMIPLDENKIEHJFAAA.wn3vaw at verizon.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Amen.
And for what it's worth... if KA3JWE no longer wishes to update or
support
his excellent program, I would be willing to assume the responsibility.
However, I don't know if he would wish to release his program into
someone
else's hands, which is understandable!
73
-----Original Message-----
From: paqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:paqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Goody K3NG
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 9:42 AM
To: PA QSO Party
Subject: [PaQSO] PA QSO Party Software
While it's often a pain to accommodate Party changes in software, it's a
fact of life in software development. Anyone who develops software
professionally or on the side knows this. When you volunteer to develop
software, you sign up for a couple things: annual updates, bug reports,
feature requests, clueless users, people emailing the day of the Party,
etc. It comes with the territory. It's not all pain and drudgery
though; the developers must derive some pleasure out of developing
otherwise they wouldn't do it. Show me a piece of commercial software
that hasn't changed in the past five years and I'll show you a bankrupt
software development company, or a dying industry or a screwed up
government agency using it.
We shouldn't hesitate to make changes based on software issues. We
should certainly give ample time for developers to make changes (now is
the time to make changes, not September 2008), but the needs of the
Party participants drive the structure of the party, not the software.
This is a QSO Party and not a software party.
Developers, please don't take this post as a dig, but more as a
recognition of the difficulties you go through. My hat goes off to
those who develop software; we all owe a debt of gratitude to you.
73
Goody
K3NG
--
Blog: http://thek3ngreport.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
PaQSO mailing list
PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:31:15 -0400
From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
Subject: RE: [PaQSO] Ch-ch-ch-ch-CHANGES!
To: <paqso at mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <NKBBLNDDGMBDMIPLDENKCEHKFAAA.wn3vaw at verizon.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Doug W3HDH once told me, during his first stint as Pa QSO Party
Chairman,
that the reason that originally 80 meter and later 160 meter CW QSO's
got a
slightly higher value than the rest of the CW QSO's was because he liked
to
operate 80 & 160 CW and wanted to make them a more advantageous to the
contesters.
And... I do recall that Mike KB3EIA mentioned quite a few months ago
that
one of the possible updates for the rules as of 2008 was the elimination
of
the disparity in the CW points, that the plan was to go to 2 points for
all
CW as of 2008. Or is my memory failing on me again?
73, ron w3wn
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:42:46 -0400
From: Goody K3NG <goody.k3ng at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PaQSO] RE: QRP, Mults, Scoring, et al
To: PA QSO Party <paqso at mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <472A4856.3020209 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>One cannot gloss over a simple fact: The major contest programs don't
support PAQP because of the non-standard (I was about to write "wierd")
scoring structure, which makes generating accurate log output a major
PITA.
<soapbox>
I won't disagree on the "weird" scoring point, but I have to ask why
major contest programs have such difficulty dealing with this. In this
day and age of programming, an end user should be able to define a
custom contest from scratch in a program using a set of rules, a wizard,
or a scripting language. I've often wondered why logging programs are
often inflexible in this regard. Back in the days of DOS programming,
you pretty much started programming from scratch and it took a lot more
work to do stuff like this. Today you have all kinds of libraries,
widgets, APIs, and code repositories to work with that makes end user
flexibility much more doable. (WB3W's program is good example of
utilizing existing APIs. He uses Jet for the database and you can
easily use M$ Access or OpenOffice Base to open and edit the database
files and even run your own queries. ) In a multi-contest program I can
envision a contest definition scripting-language interface that could
handle about any scoring scenario one could throw at it. Wouldn't it be
great if we standardized such a language, just like ADIF and Cabrillo
have standardized log import/export and submission, and have all the
multi-contest programs support it? Contest Scoring Definition Language
(or CSDL) anyone? Each contest could release its CSDL file each year to
reflect the rules, the programs just open the CSDL file and follow the
rules and away you go....
Dreamin...
Goody
--
Blog: http://thek3ngreport.blogspot.com/
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
PaQSO mailing list
PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso
End of PaQSO Digest, Vol 43, Issue 2
************************************
More information about the PaQSO
mailing list