Category: Commentary

The CQ WW Contest Committee conducted a survey of contesters from September 2 to 29, 2015.  Invitations were sent to everyone who had submitted a log in the 2014 CQ WW SSB and CW events.  Public invitation to take the survey was also made on the cq-contest email reflector.

We received 5,117 responses from contest operators around the world (after removing a few duplicate responses).  This blog post will be the first of several to present the survey results.  Thanks to Doug KR2Q for doing the data analysis and producing the charts below.

Responses by Continent

Responses were received from all continents.

Continue reading “2015 CQ WW Survey Results – part 1” →

The CQ WW Contest Committee has been working hard in the background to be prepared for the 2015 contests. We hope you are too.

With the help of Tzetzo LZ2FQ, we have been working to redesign the logcheck web page.  This page allows you to upload your log, check it for proper formatting, and then submit to the robot. We are trying to make the page easier to use and to provide more guidance when we find an error.  We urge everyone to submit their log using the web rather than email.  Feel free to try it out with your 2014 log and let us know if you find a problem.

Over the past few days, Dave KM3T has been in a data center in northern California working to install a new server for the CQ web sites and log checking. The 8+ year old server we had been using wasn’t keeping up with the increase in logs. We worked around the problem by doing log checking using a virtual server in the Amazon EC2 environment, but all of the file transfers were sometimes unreliable. The new server allows us to process the 5+ million QSOs from CQ WW CW 2014 in less than 6 minutes!  This used to take over 45 minutes.  Faster checking allows us to work more efficiently and do more testing of our software as we process the final results.

The new server was funded by a $4500 grant from the World Wide Radio Operators Foundation (www.wwrof.org).  The WWROF is a non-profit organization devoted to improving operating skills.  They have been instrumental in funding the infrastructure that it takes to host this website, the log robot, the log checking software, and the contest awards. Please take a moment to give them a donation. They are providing critical support to all of the CQ contests.

The CQ WW RTTY contest begins in less than 7 days.  CQ WW SSB is October 24-25.  Hope to see you on the air!

This story was provided by Doug Grant, K1DG.

In the first CQWW (1948), there were two categories: single-operator, and “more-than-one-operator”. By 1959 it was observed that some of the “more-than-one-operator” stations also had more than one transmitter. In order to separate the two, the categories of multi-multi and multi-single were created.

This worked OK for a long time. The 1971 rules (p. 61, October 1971 CQ) defined the multi-operator categories as follows:

“a. Single Transmitter (only one transmitter and one band permitted during the same time period).

b. Multi Transmitter (no limit to transmitters but only one signal per band permitted)”

The problem was that the “same time period” was not defined. In the 1971 CQWW SSB contest, WB2SQN (now K2SS) exploited that unclear definition and put together an interlocked “octopus” station capable of running on several bands at once and their score was nearly double all the other multi-singles. This was within the rules, but not well received.

The MS rule was changed for the 1972 contest. The new rule (Oct. 1972 CQ, p. 63), actually printed in red with a bar next to it saying “NOTE CHANGE”, read as follows:

“a. Single Transmitter (only one transmitter and one band permitted during the same time period (defined as 10 minutes). Exception: Stations may be worked on different bands during the same time period only if they are new multipliers.”

Yes, they forgot to close the first set of parentheses. But this is the first instance of a 10-minute rule.

The CQWW MS keeps more guys busy. In the modern era, the top handful of stations use interlocked in-band S&P stations on the run band, and mult stations on several bands awaiting their 10-minute shift.  It is a very popular category, even if most stations aren’t able to compete with the mega-MS stations. It is a way for several friends to get together and share one station. Everyone can
find something to do. It is fun.

Historical note: When WB2SQN “blew away” the record, his partner in crime was K2KUR (aka N2AA).  At the time, both of them were members of the CQWWCC (which was vastly smaller back then).  The shack was located in Dave’s bedroom. They could only operate on 2 bands at a time.

Doug, K1DG, relayed this story:

K1AR told me that when W1WY was in charge of the CQ contests, he was also in charge of mailing the certificates.

Frank used cardboard mailing tubes for the certificates. He brought a few hundred to the post office and when the first one was weighed, it was just barely over the weight limit and bumped the postage cost into the next increment.

He took it home and baked it for a few hours to drive out any moisture, then took it back to the post office. It “made weight”, and could be shipped cheaper. He then proceed to hand the post office clerk the rest of the batch “just like that one”, and got them all shipped for the cheaper rate.

Fast-forward to 2015…

If you receive a certificate from a CQ-sponsored contest, you may notice that your address is printed on the envelope, rather than on a label.

Turns out that a label adds just enough weight to bump the large envelope with a certificate in it (a “flat” in PO speak) to the next weight class, raising the cost significantly, especially on the 75% of certificates that are mailed overseas.

 

Some things never change.