Date   

Thanks Charlie!

Larry
 

Received my endorsements in the mail today! Thanks Charlie.
 
Larry WA7HDZ


Re: software-using and logging

Steve Lafferty <smlafferty1@...>
 

Hi Dave,

I did notice a small error when I tried using your online scoring tool
to score my PSKFEST results. I didn't catch it at first until I
transcribed the log to text and noticed a discrepancy in the number of
states. Out of the paltry 30 QSOs that I logged in the contest, I only
had exchanges from 20 states. However, the tool showed 21 states. I
noticed one of the contacts had a QRZ QTH in a different state then he
gave in the exchange. I was using the beta HRD version 6 and figured it
may have not written the ADIF correctly. I didn't delve too deeply into
the error.

--
73 & Good DX!

Steve - N0LTM


Re: PSKfest comments

David Westbrook
 

You still know who's-who, even with the uber-terse sequence -- it has that
built-in, along with every necessary element for a complete contest QSO,
which i personally find very elegant:

CQ CQ TEST KJ4IZW KJ4IZW CQ
W8KRF W8KRF
W8KRF 599 SC SC W8KRF
KJ4IZW 599 OH OH W8KRF
TU W8KRF KJ4IZW CQ

I have successfully used that sequence (both as CQ'er and S/P'er) in rtty
contests when two stations that can't hear each other are CQ'ing on top of
each other on exact freq, and the S/P'er can hear both.

But again, the focus for this type of sequence is optimizing the QSO rate
(e.g. RTTY contest).

--david
kj4izw


On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Carl Rimmer W8KRF <w8krf@...> wrote:

**


OF COURSE they want to see their call. Remember we do not see all the
signals that may be a certain freq. Propagation is not the same for
everyone. You may see/hear a station which I do not. How do I know if you
are responding to him or me? Can't we just stick with the standard calling
procedure, i.e., "His call de My call k" I will tell you all right now, if
I do not see my call as the called station, I will not respond. Amen.

Carl W8KRF

From: 070@... [mailto:070@...] On Behalf Of
Darrell
Frappier
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 5:59 PM
To: 070@...

Subject: Re: [070] Re: PSKfest comments

I followed the discussion on exchanges and found it useful. I
switched to fldigi and needed to set up macros.

I tried replying to CQ's with "n3jwj n3jwj" and got no response on at
least 6 attempts. After the last attempt I responded next time with
"call de n3jwj n3jwj k" and got an instant response. I didn't exactly
remember who had not responded before, but I think at least 3 who did
not respond came back when I started my response to them with their
call. I conclude that those 6 or so stations calling cq test expected
to see their call in a response.

Darrell N3JWJ

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:43 PM, rockdw david@...
wrote:

Since I'm the one that asked the question about what the best macro setup
is, it seems only fitting for me to weigh in on the subject. First of all,
I'd like to say thank you for all the suggestions. It really helped to get
me in the right frame of mind.

What I ultimately did was respond as follows (since I really didn't call
CQ myself at all):

Inital answer:
call de k9dwr k
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: PSKfest comments

cessnaflyer42
 

Carl,

While what you say about propagation is certainly true, I've seen enough stations violating that procedure -- particularly on RTTY, CW, and SSB -- that I think you might be missing out on contacts that way.

It's certainly your prerogative to work whatever stations you want, but you can't necessarily expect all hams to know your particular rules in advance.

73 de NF8I,

~James

--- In 070@..., "Carl Rimmer W8KRF" wrote:

OF COURSE they want to see their call. Remember we do not see all the
signals that may be a certain freq. Propagation is not the same for
everyone. You may see/hear a station which I do not. How do I know if you
are responding to him or me? Can't we just stick with the standard calling
procedure, i.e., "His call de My call k" I will tell you all right now, if
I do not see my call as the called station, I will not respond. Amen.



Carl W8KRF


Re: PSKfest comments

Carl Rimmer W8KRF
 

OF COURSE they want to see their call. Remember we do not see all the
signals that may be a certain freq. Propagation is not the same for
everyone. You may see/hear a station which I do not. How do I know if you
are responding to him or me? Can't we just stick with the standard calling
procedure, i.e., "His call de My call k" I will tell you all right now, if
I do not see my call as the called station, I will not respond. Amen.



Carl W8KRF



From: 070@... [mailto:070@...] On Behalf Of Darrell
Frappier
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 5:59 PM
To: 070@...
Subject: Re: [070] Re: PSKfest comments





I followed the discussion on exchanges and found it useful. I
switched to fldigi and needed to set up macros.

I tried replying to CQ's with "n3jwj n3jwj" and got no response on at
least 6 attempts. After the last attempt I responded next time with
"call de n3jwj n3jwj k" and got an instant response. I didn't exactly
remember who had not responded before, but I think at least 3 who did
not respond came back when I started my response to them with their
call. I conclude that those 6 or so stations calling cq test expected
to see their call in a response.

Darrell N3JWJ

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:43 PM, rockdw david@...
<mailto:david%40graniteweb.com> > wrote:

Since I'm the one that asked the question about what the best macro setup
is, it seems only fitting for me to weigh in on the subject. First of all,
I'd like to say thank you for all the suggestions. It really helped to get
me in the right frame of mind.

What I ultimately did was respond as follows (since I really didn't call
CQ myself at all):

Inital answer:
call de k9dwr k


Re: PSKfest comments

Doc
 

agn,agn,de w8kq kn

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Westbrook" <dwestbrook@...>
To: <070@...>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: [070] Re: PSKfest comments


could be others were calling, too, and you were covered up? Maybe with
"hiscall de ..." it helped you by "tail-ending"?? interesting data points
though, but hard to say one way or the other .... (fwiw i've never had a
problem with just "mycall mycall" )

And nothing wrong with "hiscall de" in these psk contests ... In RTTY,
OTOH, you can find he's already come back to another station by the time
you finish your call! especially us with long calls :(

~~~~

On a related note, if you the CQ'er gives you a "agn" or "n3???" or
similar, then definitely do not give "hiscall de..." -- he knows someone is
calling, and only piece he needs next is your call ... it's always
frustrating as a CQ'er for the sequence to be:
CQ CQ test KJ4IZW KJ4IZW CQ
!@#$!@$# N3JASDAS N3JDASD
N3?? N3?? AGN
KJ4IZW KJ4IZW DE N3!@#!@$$#@
Murphy makes it happen every time!! Go with just "mycall" 2 or 3 or 4 times.

--david
kj4izw


On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Darrell Frappier <n3jwj@...> wrote:

**


I followed the discussion on exchanges and found it useful. I
switched to fldigi and needed to set up macros.

I tried replying to CQ's with "n3jwj n3jwj" and got no response on at
least 6 attempts. After the last attempt I responded next time with
"call de n3jwj n3jwj k" and got an instant response. I didn't exactly
remember who had not responded before, but I think at least 3 who did
not respond came back when I started my response to them with their
call. I conclude that those 6 or so stations calling cq test expected
to see their call in a response.

Darrell N3JWJ


On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:43 PM, rockdw david@...> wrote:

Since I'm the one that asked the question about what the best macro
setup is, it seems only fitting for me to weigh in on the subject. First of
all, I'd like to say thank you for all the suggestions. It really helped to
get me in the right frame of mind.

What I ultimately did was respond as follows (since I really didn't call
CQ myself at all):

Inital answer:
call de k9dwr k





------------------------------------

Check out the 070 Club website at <http://www.podxs070.com/> for the latest information on 070 Club activities.



Yahoo! Groups Links





-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6014 - Release Date: 01/06/13


Re: PSKfest comments

David Westbrook
 

could be others were calling, too, and you were covered up? Maybe with
"hiscall de ..." it helped you by "tail-ending"?? interesting data points
though, but hard to say one way or the other .... (fwiw i've never had a
problem with just "mycall mycall" )

And nothing wrong with "hiscall de" in these psk contests ... In RTTY,
OTOH, you can find he's already come back to another station by the time
you finish your call! especially us with long calls :(

~~~~

On a related note, if you the CQ'er gives you a "agn" or "n3???" or
similar, then definitely do not give "hiscall de..." -- he knows someone is
calling, and only piece he needs next is your call ... it's always
frustrating as a CQ'er for the sequence to be:
CQ CQ test KJ4IZW KJ4IZW CQ
!@#$!@$# N3JASDAS N3JDASD
N3?? N3?? AGN
KJ4IZW KJ4IZW DE N3!@#!@$$#@
Murphy makes it happen every time!! Go with just "mycall" 2 or 3 or 4 times.

--david
kj4izw

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Darrell Frappier <n3jwj@...> wrote:

**


I followed the discussion on exchanges and found it useful. I
switched to fldigi and needed to set up macros.

I tried replying to CQ's with "n3jwj n3jwj" and got no response on at
least 6 attempts. After the last attempt I responded next time with
"call de n3jwj n3jwj k" and got an instant response. I didn't exactly
remember who had not responded before, but I think at least 3 who did
not respond came back when I started my response to them with their
call. I conclude that those 6 or so stations calling cq test expected
to see their call in a response.

Darrell N3JWJ


On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:43 PM, rockdw david@...> wrote:

Since I'm the one that asked the question about what the best macro
setup is, it seems only fitting for me to weigh in on the subject. First of
all, I'd like to say thank you for all the suggestions. It really helped to
get me in the right frame of mind.

What I ultimately did was respond as follows (since I really didn't call
CQ myself at all):

Inital answer:
call de k9dwr k


Re: PSKfest comments

 

I followed the discussion on exchanges and found it useful. I
switched to fldigi and needed to set up macros.

I tried replying to CQ's with "n3jwj n3jwj" and got no response on at
least 6 attempts. After the last attempt I responded next time with
"call de n3jwj n3jwj k" and got an instant response. I didn't exactly
remember who had not responded before, but I think at least 3 who did
not respond came back when I started my response to them with their
call. I conclude that those 6 or so stations calling cq test expected
to see their call in a response.

Darrell N3JWJ

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:43 PM, rockdw <david@...> wrote:

Since I'm the one that asked the question about what the best macro setup is, it seems only fitting for me to weigh in on the subject. First of all, I'd like to say thank you for all the suggestions. It really helped to get me in the right frame of mind.

What I ultimately did was respond as follows (since I really didn't call CQ myself at all):

Inital answer:
call de k9dwr k


Re: psk characters speed

Steve W3HF
 

Just re-read this and missed a comment.

If you think this a valid test perhaps we can get 10 members to try
it and see what they get so we will know the effect/affect of
different cpus.
PSK is not dependent on the speed of the CPU, as long as it is fast enough to run the software. The bit rate (for PSK31) is fixed at 31.25 bps regardless of processor.

Steve
W3HF


Re: psk characters speed

Steve W3HF
 

Or just disconnect your computer from your radio, and let the computer free-wheel. Or just turn off the radio. No danger of transmitting then.

I've done both in the past to verify these things.

Steve
W3HF

--- In 070@..., Robert Johnstone wrote:

If you transmit each into a dummy load and time the time your tx stays lit or needle deflects for each on a long string such as you show below, cant you verify the relative times with a simple stopwatch,  Since they are about a second and a half different, 10 strings of each per tx should give about 14 seconds difference and average out the key up down/time of your initial relay.  Also, you would want your RSID off.  Just a thought. KD0FIP #1396 73  If you think this a valid test perhaps we can get 10 members to try it and see what they get so we will know the effect/affect of different cpus.
 
R.A. Johnstone


________________________________
From: David Westbrook
To: 070@...
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 8:05 AM
Subject: [070] psk characters speed


 
I have extended my "rtty length" calculator to do PSK31, too:
http://dwestbrook.net/projects/ham/rtty-length/?mode=PSK31

It will show the BPSK31 transmission time needed for any given string.
for example, "CQ CQ PSKFEST DE KJ4IZW KJ4IZW CQ" is 9.44s, but all
lowercase is 8.00s
This is due to the difference in the varicode encoding -- the utility above
displays the encoding for both for a visual comparison.

Interesting to see some of the differences .... here's a chart of the
encoding per character:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varicode#Printable_characters

===> I'm looking for someone more knowledgeable than me about the inner
workings of the BPSK31 mode to verify the calculations...
I based it one the varicode length (from Wikipedia) plus '00' between
characters, and 32ms per bit.

73
--david
kj4izw

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: LONP checker errors

Phil Barnett <philb@...>
 

On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 12:27 -0800, pegduck56 wrote:

Phil, which checker? Davids will do LONP also. The other one just does LONP (I think)
Mine.


Re: psk characters speed

Robert Johnstone
 

If you transmit each into a dummy load and time the time your tx stays lit or needle deflects for each on a long string such as you show below, cant you verify the relative times with a simple stopwatch,  Since they are about a second and a half different, 10 strings of each per tx should give about 14 seconds difference and average out the key up down/time of your initial relay.  Also, you would want your RSID off.  Just a thought. KD0FIP #1396 73  If you think this a valid test perhaps we can get 10 members to try it and see what they get so we will know the effect/affect of different cpus.
 
R.A. Johnstone


________________________________
From: David Westbrook <dwestbrook@...>
To: 070@...
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 8:05 AM
Subject: [070] psk characters speed


 
I have extended my "rtty length" calculator to do PSK31, too:
http://dwestbrook.net/projects/ham/rtty-length/?mode=PSK31

It will show the BPSK31 transmission time needed for any given string.
for example, "CQ CQ PSKFEST DE KJ4IZW KJ4IZW CQ" is 9.44s, but all
lowercase is 8.00s
This is due to the difference in the varicode encoding -- the utility above
displays the encoding for both for a visual comparison.

Interesting to see some of the differences .... here's a chart of the
encoding per character:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varicode#Printable_characters

===> I'm looking for someone more knowledgeable than me about the inner
workings of the BPSK31 mode to verify the calculations...
I based it one the varicode length (from Wikipedia) plus '00' between
characters, and 32ms per bit.

73
--david
kj4izw

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: LONP checker errors

pegduck56 <pegduck56@...>
 

Phil, which checker? Davids will do LONP also. The other one just does LONP (I think)
 
K7TRK

From: Phil Barnett <philb@...>
To: 070@...
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 11:47 AM
Subject: [070] LONP checker errors

 
Hi all.

I've been getting a lot of notifications of problems with the LONP
checker.

I believe this is an issue with the membership by number page and I have
notified the web site owner of the issue by private email.

I hope that when he makes a very small change to the page that the LONP
checker will begin working normally.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


LONP checker errors

Phil Barnett <philb@...>
 

Hi all.

I've been getting a lot of notifications of problems with the LONP
checker.

I believe this is an issue with the membership by number page and I have
notified the web site owner of the issue by private email.

I hope that when he makes a very small change to the page that the LONP
checker will begin working normally.


Re: Answering CQs with Contest Exchanges (was PSKfest comments)

ljl2002@att.net
 

Hey Tim,
 
Tnx fer the Q!!!!
 
73
Joe
KA1PPV  #1482

--- On Sat, 1/5/13, Tim Richardson <groupsrichart@...> wrote:


From: Tim Richardson <groupsrichart@...>
Subject: Re: [070] Answering CQs with Contest Exchanges (was PSKfest comments)
To: 070@...
Date: Saturday, January 5, 2013, 11:01 PM



 



Well, I am not going to get involved in the whole discussion of what is
right and what is wrong. This is my very first contest in 38 years as a
ham and I had a great time. I had some macros set up for the contest and
I hit the wrong button a few times and inadvertently sent an exchange
when I shouldn't have, but I did learn from my mistakes and observing
others. Above all a contest should be fun or nobody would participate. I
had fun. Thanks to all the fellow PSKers and 070 club members out there
for a great time!

Tim W4IOU

On 1/5/2013 10:40 PM, k9vic wrote:

Well, it's written here:
http://www.va7st.ca/home.html/2011/09/rtty-contesting-tips/

(and many other places a quick search will turn up, not just tips
related to RTTY)

I quote:
"Some new operators may think they are saving everyone time by sending
their exchange without being asked for it. It doesn’t save time — it
throws off the smooth cadence of a good CQ run, and usually results in
senseless QRM as the offending station transmits an unwanted exchange
on top of other calling statoins. A smart operator sends his exchange
ONLY after receiving one from the CQing station."

I'm not trying to start/continue an argument. I agree with Carl and
Ted that we don't all HAVE to be perfectionists and trim our macros to
save milliseconds (although the original question was exactly related
to that, and answered appropriately). Realistically, PSK 31 isn't a
very good contest mode (PSK 63 is much better) and the qso rates will
never be like they are on RTTY. But some things (like answering a CQ
with an exchange) really aren't efficient.

Eric/K9VIC

________________________________
From: David Westbrook dwestbrook@...
To: 070@...
Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2013 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [070] Re: PSKfest comments



Also, for Steve and David, where is it written that one does not
answer a
contest specific CQ with an exchange?

fair question ... I'll fork this to a new thread tomorrow or monday, and
reply there with my explanation ... or someone else is welcome to start a
new thread, first -- i just need to work on rtty roundup and house stuff
first that i put off from pskfest :)

--david
kj4izw

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 10:03 PM, pegduck56 pegduck56@...
wrote:
Also, for Steve and David, where is it written that one does not
answer a
contest specific CQ with an exchange? If I'm just out there playing
radio
and calling CQ or CQ DX, fine, the polite way to respond is with
your call
sign, etc. BUT if I'm making a specific contest CQ like 'CQ
PSKfest', I'm
in effect advertising, begging, pleading, etc for a contact specific to
that contest/event goal if you will. I had 10-20 responses to my 'CQ
PSKFest' just this afternoon that started with the exchange reply.
What's
the problem with that? That was exactly what I was looking for and was
quick and efficient.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Welcome new members

J Budzowski <jbudzowski@...>
 

Pse welcome new 070 Club members Larry WB5CXC #1616 and Dave KB8KOJ #1617...73 de Jay N3DQU


Re: psk characters speed

Steve W3HF
 

Craig has already mentioned some of what I would have said:

- Fewer people know the details of QPSK31, and the "default" is BPSK31.

- QPSK31 is inversion-dependent, like RTTY, so you have to match the USB/LSB convention of the sender or select INV (or equivalent) in your software.

To that I'd add that QPSK31 was originally reported as harder to tune in than BPSK31, but that point may be moot now as most software has a built-in AFC that works well.

Some other comments:

- If there were an uncoded version of QPSK31, its bit error rate (BER) performance (as a function of SNR) would be exactly the same as BPSK31's when the SNR is normalized to data rate. Since QPSK sends two bits per phase symbol but BPSK only sends one, and the symbol rate stays the same (31.25 symbols per second), you'd need twice as much power to transmit a QPSK31 signal as a BPSK31. But if you could speed up the symbol rate for the BPSK31 to match that of uncoded QPSK31, they'd perform exactly the same (as a function of power and noise). Some of you already realize that the "speeded-up" version of BPSK is BPSK63. Since it runs at twice the symbol/data rate as BPSK31, it requires twice the power, and that WOULD be the performance of QPSK31 if it didn't have the coding.

- Due to the convolutional coding, though, QPSK should be about 5 dB better than BPSK, but technically that parameter is defined for an Additive White Gaussian Noise (AWGN) channel. That would be true if the only noise contributors were receiver front end noise, or classic "background static." But HF channels often exhibit other characteristics, like fading (QSB), impulse noise, etc.

- QPSK may also be more susceptible to phase distortions than BPSK. These might occur in some propagation conditions, such as polar paths and aurora. But the magnitude of those is enough to distort both signals enough to be unusable, and so the difference may be negligible.

- If your PSK software has a phase scope display, it's easy to tell the difference between BPSK and QPSK. A clean strong BPSK signal will be a vertical line (or close to it). A clean QPSK signal with add a horizontal line.

- In theory, both BPSK and QPSK should display the same band-spreading characteristics in the presence of large distortions (like overdriven transmitters). I'd speculate that if you perceive that there are proportionally fewer distorted QPSK signals, it's because the operators who know about QPSK are more experienced, and thus less likely to have distorted transmitters.

Steve
W3HF

--- In 070@..., "my_call_is_ac4m" wrote:

Some of it is due to no education about QPSK other reason could be due to hams resist change in general, it hard to know the difference by the sound and look (which I can hear the difference and see the difference), BPSK31 is usually the default mode, Not a huge difference in actually performance due to phase noise, QPSK is side band dependent some people on BPSK might be in LSB or USB.

Another side note I think QPSK modulation technique is a little more behaved compared to BPSK (meaning not as wide banded like BPSK can be maybe that is due to the energy being spread out more in the phases instead of just two phases which there is slight penalty compared to BPSK, but the soft decision brings it back up near BPSK levels for sensitivity)

--- In 070@..., David Westbrook wrote:

thanks steve!

If the rate is the same, and QPSK provides FEC (forward error correctrion)
for robust decodes, why isn't it used more?

Is is because of the latency? (from wiki) "To successfully decode an
input bit requires a large number of phase shift sequences to be received,
causing a 20 bit, 640 millisecond latency (delay) in the output of the
decoder"
Or because we just d_n't r_a_ly n__d 10_% cp_ to un_ers__d th_ m___age?
Or other (historical/etc) reasons?

--david
kj4izw



On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:00 AM, melachri wrote:

**



===> I'm looking for someone more knowledgeable than me about the inner
workings of the BPSK31 mode to verify the calculations...
I based it one the varicode length (from Wikipedia) plus '00' between
characters, and 32ms per bit.
I didn't check your lookup table, but the 00 delimiter and 32 ms per bit
parameters are correct.

And FWIW, it's the same for QPSK31. Although QPSK encodes two bits per
modulation symbol, the rate-1/2 convolutional code exactly compensates,
making the character rate identical.

Steve
W3HF



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: software-using and logging

Doc
 

Hi- Mightt be age <G>,but did di that last year and it worked. So I printed it out and mailed it this am. Main log - n3fjp- In MMVARI, I record the contact ,as to having a ready check for dupes. If I have to go to Gen log,that takes time, HI . Will be looking for the best and easyest way to do this . TKS,for another great contest !1 SDe W8KQ

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Westbrook" <dwestbrook@...>
To: <070@...>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [070] software-using and logging


The scoring utility is looking for <DXCC> (the numeric code) and <STATE>
fields in order to robustly determine S/P/C for multipliers ...

What is your main logger? I recommend importing the contest Q's into your
main logger, and then exporting those contest Q's back to get a good full
ADI file. e.g. HRD and DXKeeper produce very nice & complete ADIF files.

I'm also working on getting the scoring to utility to accommodate a wider
ranger of ADIF (or pseudo-ADIF), including attempting to guess the
dxcc/state from the SPC (not robust -- e.g.
LA/la/norway/Norway/Louisiana), with the SPC coming from the SRX or
SRX_STRING or COMMENT fields. This will probably work ok for PSKFest, but
is not going to work well for the other contests that have a name in the
exchange, becuase then the exchange has a bunch of other stuff in it.

Basically all of the support emails i get from the checker are loggers that
aren't exporting key fields, or producing ADIF that violates the standard
specification.
I get nearly none support questions regarding files generated from DXK or
HRD.

--david
kj4izw


On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:42 AM, k8nih40 <gsbishop@...> wrote:

**


Hi-All- After a great contest,I need direction- Been using MMVARI for my
contesting and logging to Gen log- been ok,but did an up-grade B4 the test.
Couldn't seem to get a txt print-out that stated all I needed. So,What are
others using for tests??? i like the MMVARI,because the 7 macros are right
below the waterfall. log is a bit light for contests. Thats the reason for
Gen log . TKS,jerry W8KQ






------------------------------------

Check out the 070 Club website at <http://www.podxs070.com/> for the latest information on 070 Club activities.



Yahoo! Groups Links





-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6014 - Release Date: 01/06/13


Re: software-using and logging

David Westbrook
 

The scoring utility is looking for <DXCC> (the numeric code) and <STATE>
fields in order to robustly determine S/P/C for multipliers ...

What is your main logger? I recommend importing the contest Q's into your
main logger, and then exporting those contest Q's back to get a good full
ADI file. e.g. HRD and DXKeeper produce very nice & complete ADIF files.

I'm also working on getting the scoring to utility to accommodate a wider
ranger of ADIF (or pseudo-ADIF), including attempting to guess the
dxcc/state from the SPC (not robust -- e.g.
LA/la/norway/Norway/Louisiana), with the SPC coming from the SRX or
SRX_STRING or COMMENT fields. This will probably work ok for PSKFest, but
is not going to work well for the other contests that have a name in the
exchange, becuase then the exchange has a bunch of other stuff in it.

Basically all of the support emails i get from the checker are loggers that
aren't exporting key fields, or producing ADIF that violates the standard
specification.
I get nearly none support questions regarding files generated from DXK or
HRD.

--david
kj4izw


On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:42 AM, k8nih40 <gsbishop@...> wrote:

**


Hi-All- After a great contest,I need direction- Been using MMVARI for my
contesting and logging to Gen log- been ok,but did an up-grade B4 the test.
Couldn't seem to get a txt print-out that stated all I needed. So,What are
others using for tests??? i like the MMVARI,because the 7 macros are right
below the waterfall. log is a bit light for contests. Thats the reason for
Gen log . TKS,jerry W8KQ



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: software-using and logging

 

Jerry, I use GenLog also.
After the contest, I click on "After Contest", then on the drop down menu "Log".
I click on "Write More Logs".
There I do a Dupe Sheet, and Summary. I save those to my "Contest Archive" folder on my C Drive.
I then go back to the Log drop down menu and click on "Write Cabrillo Log". I save that to the same folder.
I open up Notepad and copy/paste all 3 of the text files to one document and that's what I send in to the official person.
It seems convoluted and lengthy, but actually takes no more that 5 minutes of time and creates a file I can refer back to with everything on 1 document.
Let me know if this helps?
Milt.
N6MG
070-650

----- Original Message -----
From: k8nih40
To: 070@...
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 7:42 AM
Subject: [070] software-using and logging



Hi-All- After a great contest,I need direction- Been using MMVARI for my contesting and logging to Gen log- been ok,but did an up-grade B4 the test. Couldn't seem to get a txt print-out that stated all I needed. So,What are others using for tests??? i like the MMVARI,because the 7 macros are right below the waterfall. log is a bit light for contests. Thats the reason for Gen log . TKS,jerry W8KQ