|
Moderated
Re: WAC Award
Dave AA6YQ
* more AA6YQ comments below
+ Agreed. And don’t forget documentation! …. Including the functional specification: what is it meant to achieve (and avoid), ideally in sufficient detail to design, code and test it? Plus a business case to cost-justify the investment – maybe comparing options including do-nothing. * Without a product manager in place, there can be no credible revenue projection. I spent years advocating the hiring of an LoTW product manager. Lots of nodding heads, but no action. If something was already coded, I guess some of that at least has been done already. So how come it didn’t make it to production? Is anything salveagable/reusable from the original initiative I wonder? * Knowing the developer, I suspect that the prototype could be deployed tomorrow to a friendly award/contest sponsor or two-- but a successful first iteration would require documentation, training material, and someone capable of providing user support. Taking these steps would only be sensible if there was a commitment to productization if the initial iterations proved successful. * The prototype was developed as WAZ support was wrapping up - just before all LoTW development resources were re-assigned to what were deemed higher-priority projects. Whether resource unavailability was the only impediment to moving forward with the prototype, I can't say, as I resigned from the ARRL's LoTW Committee at that time. 73, Dave, AA6YQ |
|
|
|
Moderated
Re: WAC Award
John Morphet
The API sounds like a potentially long term solution. Is there a simpler solution to using LoTW for the WAC award?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
John, WØZI -----Original Message-----
From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 11:01 PM To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] WAC Award * more AA6YQ comments below + Agreed. And don’t forget documentation! …. Including the functional specification: what is it meant to achieve (and avoid), ideally in sufficient detail to design, code and test it? Plus a business case to cost-justify the investment – maybe comparing options including do-nothing. * Without a product manager in place, there can be no credible revenue projection. I spent years advocating the hiring of an LoTW product manager. Lots of nodding heads, but no action. If something was already coded, I guess some of that at least has been done already. So how come it didn’t make it to production? Is anything salveagable/reusable from the original initiative I wonder? * Knowing the developer, I suspect that the prototype could be deployed tomorrow to a friendly award/contest sponsor or two-- but a successful first iteration would require documentation, training material, and someone capable of providing user support. Taking these steps would only be sensible if there was a commitment to productization if the initial iterations proved successful. * The prototype was developed as WAZ support was wrapping up - just before all LoTW development resources were re-assigned to what were deemed higher-priority projects. Whether resource unavailability was the only impediment to moving forward with the prototype, I can't say, as I resigned from the ARRL's LoTW Committee at that time. 73, Dave, AA6YQ |
|
|
|
Moderated
WAS awards and EME
Dave AA6YQ
Are EME QSOs valid for WAS mixed, by-band, and by-mode awards? Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Dave, AA6YQ |
|
|
|
Moderated
Re: WAC Award
I administer the Worked All California
Counties award for the Northern Cal Contest Club. It's a tad less
than "prestigious" but I'd gladly cough up a nominal annual sum
for the ability to submit a list of QSO's from an applicant and
get QSL info back. We also accept QSO's in the Cal QSO Party if
the other stations have submitted logs. An XML interface [like
QRZ.com] would be great.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
73, Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW Sparks NV DM09dn Washoe County On 10/25/2019 1:32 PM, Dave AA6YQ
wrote:
|
|
|
|
Moderated
WAS awards and EME
Hello Dave,
Yes, EME contacts count toward WAS and DXCC, and count for band and/or mode.
There is no EME endorsement.
Due to antenna physical size limitations, most EME contacts take place at 50 MHz and above.
With benefit of EME, WAS has been earned on 144, 222, 432 and 1296 MHz (and DXCC on 144 and 432 MHz). To see a list of 50 MHz and Up WAS Award recipients seeÂ
See www.arrl.org/was for WAS rules, and application form showing band/mode award options, etc.Â
73 Bart Jahnke, W9JJ
ARRL Radiosport Manager
On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 4:24 PM Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Moderated
Re: WAS awards and EME
Dave AA6YQ
* AA6YQ comments below
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Yes, EME contacts count toward WAS and DXCC, and count for band and/or mode. There is no EME endorsement. Due to antenna physical size limitations, most EME contacts take place at 50 MHz and above. With benefit of EME, WAS has been earned on 144, 222, 432 and 1296 MHz (and DXCC on 144 and 432 MHz). To see a list of 50 MHz and Up WAS Award recipients see http://www.arrl.org/50-mhz-and-up-was-lists See www.arrl.org/was for WAS rules, and application form showing band/mode award options, etc. 73 Bart Jahnke, W9JJ ARRL Radiosport Manager * Thanks for the rapid response, Bart! 73, Dave, AA6YQ On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 4:24 PM Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@...> wrote:
Are EME QSOs valid for WAS mixed, by-band, and by-mode awards? Is there a WAS EME endorsement? Â Â Â Â Â Â 73, Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Dave, AA6YQ |
|
|
|
Moderated
Re: WAC Award
Alan Sorum WL7CG <asorum@...>
All, LOTW support for the WACC Award would be great. I thought it would be easy a few years ago to get all the California counties. Wrong. 73 Alan WL7CG On 10/25/19 2:13 PM, Skip wrote:
I administer the Worked All California Counties award for the Northern Cal Contest Club. It's a tad less than "prestigious" but I'd gladly cough up a nominal annual sum for the ability to submit a list of QSO's from an applicant and get QSL info back. We also accept QSO's in the Cal QSO Party if the other stations have submitted logs. An XML interface [like QRZ.com] would be great. |
|
|
|
Moderated
Time to delete Scarborough Reef from DXCC status?
Mike Groom
This "entity" would never be even considered today, the use of scaffolds to support platforms above the few protruding rocks is surely beyond acceptable procedures. With rising sea levels - and there's no question that this is happening - even the rocks may well be submerged by this time. The "entity" was created to satisfy certain folks who desperately wanted a "new one", but the chances of it ever being activated again appear to be minimal considering also the continuing political situation in the area.
Of course, it's the one entity I've needed for many years to have them all :)) |
|
|
|
Moderated
Re: Time to delete Scarborough Reef from DXCC status?
W3UR Bernie McClenny
DXCC Entities are not deleted because of lack of activity. They are deleted when they no longer meet the criteria that got them on the list to begin with.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Bernie McClenny, W3UR Editor of: The Daily DX (1997-2019) The Weekly DX (2001-2019) How's DX? (1999-2019) Two week trial - http://www.dailydx.com/free-trial-request/ https://twitter.com/dailydx 410-489-6518 On Oct 27, 2019, at 6:52 PM, Mike Groom <ve3vhb@...> wrote: |
|
|
|
Moderated
Re: Time to delete Scarborough Reef from DXCC status?
If indeed the "Rocks" are submerged at High Tide, then they
no longer meet the DXCC Criteria and should be deleted.
The only problem is verifying that they are submerged at High
Tide.
73, Dick, W1KSZ
ps: I do have it confirmed.
Sent from Outlook
From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> on behalf of Bernie McClenny via Groups.Arrl.Org <bernie=dailydx.com@...>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 5:59 AM To: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Time to delete Scarborough Reef from DXCC status? Â
DXCC Entities are not deleted because of lack of activity. They are deleted when they no longer meet the criteria that got them on the list to begin with.
Bernie McClenny, W3UR Editor of: The Daily DX (1997-2019)           The Weekly DX (2001-2019)           How's DX? (1999-2019) Two week trial - http://www.dailydx.com/free-trial-request/  https://twitter.com/dailydx 410-489-6518 > On Oct 27, 2019, at 6:52 PM, Mike Groom <ve3vhb@...> wrote: > > This "entity" would never be even considered today, the use of scaffolds to support platforms above the few protruding rocks is surely beyond acceptable procedures. With rising sea levels - and there's no question that this is happening - even the rocks may well be submerged by this time. The "entity" was created to satisfy certain folks who desperately wanted a "new one", but the chances of it ever being activated again appear to be minimal considering also the continuing political situation in the area. > > Of course, it's the one entity I've needed for many years to have them all :)) > |
|
|
|
Moderated
Re: Time to delete Scarborough Reef from DXCC status?
It would require a vote of the Board. I can’t speak for anyone else but I wouldn’t support it unless the rocks become totally submerged, never to return.Â
|
|
|
|
Moderated
Re: Time to delete Scarborough Reef from DXCC status?
To clarify - it would require a Board vote if it still met the rules. If it didn’t meet the rules it could be deleted because it no longer met the rules (like KH5K was).
Ria N2RJ |
|
|
|
Moderated
Re: Time to delete Scarborough Reef from DXCC status?
Jim Miller, AB3CV
Hi Bernie
Any idea where I could find the submission criteria that put a pile of rocks on the list? Thanks Jim ab3cv |
|
|
|
Moderated
Re: Time to delete Scarborough Reef from DXCC status?
W3UR Bernie McClenny
I don’t have a copy of the rules at the time BS7H was added. Perhaps someone in Newington?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Bernie McClenny, W3UR Editor of: The Daily DX (1997-2019) The Weekly DX (2001-2019) How's DX? (1999-2019) Two week trial - http://www.dailydx.com/free-trial-request/ https://twitter.com/dailydx 410-489-6518 On Oct 28, 2019, at 9:26 AM, Jim Miller, AB3CV <jtmiller47@...> wrote: |
|
|
|
Moderated
Re: Time to delete Scarborough Reef from DXCC status?
I've been to Scarborough Reef ... well, over
it at 10,000 ft. The S. China Sea is dotted with atoll-like reefs
all the way from the Philippines to the mainland. I suspect that
at some tide conditions, the "rocks" are underwater, even if only
an inch or so and at other times are exposed. I would think that
exposed 24/7 should be a requirement. T2 and others may fail that
requirement in the foreseeable future. I do have the BS7H card
however.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
73, Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW Sparks NV DM09dn Washoe County On 10/27/2019 3:52 PM, Mike Groom
wrote:
This "entity" would never be even considered today, the use of scaffolds to support platforms above the few protruding rocks is surely beyond acceptable procedures. With rising sea levels - and there's no question that this is happening - even the rocks may well be submerged by this time. The "entity" was created to satisfy certain folks who desperately wanted a "new one", but the chances of it ever being activated again appear to be minimal considering also the continuing political situation in the area. |
|
|
|
DXCC Rule 9.(c) - Contacts through Remote Stations
Mickey Baker N4MB <fishflorida@...>
The DXCC rule 9. (c) states "QSOs made with legally licensed, remotely controlled stations are allowed to be used for DXCC credit." and later the rules discuss "Technological Advances" and state "It will continue to be up to the operator to decide what types of legal remote control operating he/she will use (if any) to contribute to an operating award."
I've discussed this rule 9.(c) with many amateurs, more than a few of them on the DXCC Honor Roll, and a good percentage of them object to this rule because it promotes "purchasing services" rather than building and maintaining a long term DX chasing station. Their presumption is that the "operator doesn't learn anything." I've heard that it is inconsistent with the VUCC rule that requires all contacts be made "within a 200KM" distance of one another, and would like to see a change to represent this. I'd like to hear what ARRL members think. Should the rule stay as written, or, given the proliferation of remote stations, should a change be considered? Thanks and 73, Mickey N4MB |
|
|
|
Moderated
Re: Time to delete Scarborough Reef from DXCC status?
Zack Widup
When was the last operation from there? I feel that if an entity has not been activated in a long time and is not likely to, it should be taken off the list until it is activated again. 73, Zack W9SZ On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:24 AM Skip <k6dgw@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: DXCC Rule 9.(c) - Contacts through Remote Stations
Zack Widup
There are at least a few scenarios I envision: 1. Someone doesn't have the space in their own yard to set up a big station (like me). So they set up their own remote station somewhere not too far away. 2. A friend lets someone use their station remotely at no charge. 3. Someone charges for the use of their remote station by any legally licensed ham who wants to pay for it. I believe the remote station being used for a DXCC QSO does have to be in the same country as the operator for a QSO to count as DXCC. For DXCC purposes, I don't see much difference between using a remote station and actually going to another op's station to use it to work someone. I often listen to the ham bands (and other things) on KiwiSDR remote receivers via internet. One of the big pluses for the new ARRL Volunteer Monitor program is that you have the capability and knowledge to do this. I never do it using the remote receiver as the receiving end of a QSO. VUCC is different. The rules state: "6. For VUCC awards on 50 through 1296 MHz and Satellite, all contacts must be made from locations no more than 200 km apart. For SHF awards, contacts must be made from a single location, defined as within a 300-meter diameter circle." So in this case, on 50 through 1296 MHz, all remote station QSO's must be within 200 km. For bands above that, it's a moot point. It would be extremely difficult to set up a remote station on 10 GHz and above. I do almost all of my SHF operating from hilltops, one hilltop in particular. And as a mm-wave op, I can say that it is really difficult in some areas to find a location where you can work 5 grids from one spot on 47 GHz and above. I still haven't found a good one yet in this area. 73, Zack W9SZ On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:24 AM Mickey Baker N4MB <fishflorida@...> wrote: The DXCC rule 9. (c) states "QSOs made with legally licensed, remotely controlled stations are allowed to be used for DXCC credit." and later the rules discuss "Technological Advances" and state "It will continue to be up to the operator to decide what types of legal remote control operating he/she will use (if any) to contribute to an operating award." |
|
|
|
Moderated
Re: Time to delete Scarborough Reef from DXCC status?
W3UR Bernie McClenny
China was not taken off the list. It was 40 years. Albania was not taken off the list it was about 21 years.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Both also were elevated to the top of the most wanted list. They are rare for a reason. Start taking things off the list because no one has figured out how to operate from there and the next thing you know we’ll have more requests to take others off the list for some other reason. The only reason to take a country off the list is if it no longer meets the criteria that got it on there in the first place. Bernie Bernie McClenny, W3UR Editor of: The Daily DX (1997-2019) The Weekly DX (2001-2019) How's DX? (1999-2019) Two week trial - http://www.dailydx.com/free-trial-request/ https://twitter.com/dailydx 410-489-6518 On Nov 7, 2019, at 8:28 AM, Zack Widup <w9sz.zack@...> wrote: |
|
|
|
Moderated
Re: Time to delete Scarborough Reef from DXCC status?
Kermit Lehman
Why was Wrangel Island taken off the list? It was on the DXCC list in 1958 and later removed but isn't on the Deleted list. There must be a story there. 73,
Ken, AB1J
-----Original Message-----
From: Bernie McClenny via Groups.Arrl.Org <bernie=dailydx.com@...> To: ARRL-Awards <ARRL-Awards@...> Sent: Thu, Nov 7, 2019 2:24 pm Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Time to delete Scarborough Reef from DXCC status? China was not taken off the list. It was 40 years. Albania was not taken off the list it was about 21 years.
Both also were elevated to the top of the most wanted list. They are rare for a reason. Start taking things off the list because no one has figured out how to operate from there and the next thing you know we’ll have more requests to take others off the list for some other reason. The only reason to take a country off the list is if it no longer meets the criteria that got it on there in the first place. Bernie Bernie McClenny, W3UR Editor of: The Daily DX (1997-2019)     The Weekly DX (2001-2019)     How's DX? (1999-2019) Two week trial - http://www.dailydx.com/free-trial-request/  https://twitter.com/dailydx 410-489-6518 > On Nov 7, 2019, at 8:28 AM, Zack Widup <w9sz.zack@...> wrote: > > When was the last operation from there? I feel that if an entity has not been activated in a long time and is not likely to, it should be taken off the list until it is activated again. > > 73, Zack W9SZ > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:24 AM Skip <k6dgw@...> wrote: > I've been to Scarborough Reef ... well, over it at 10,000 ft. The S. China Sea is dotted with atoll-like reefs all the way from the Philippines to the mainland. I suspect that at some tide conditions, the "rocks" are underwater, even if only an inch or so and at other times are exposed. I would think that exposed 24/7 should be a requirement. T2 and others may fail that requirement in the foreseeable future. I do have the BS7H card however. > > 73, > Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW > Sparks NV DM09dn > Washoe County > > On 10/27/2019 3:52 PM, Mike Groom wrote: >> This "entity" would never be even considered today, the use of scaffolds to support platforms above the few protruding rocks is surely beyond acceptable procedures. With rising sea levels - and there's no question that this is happening - even the rocks may well be submerged by this time. The "entity" was created to satisfy certain folks who desperately wanted a "new one", but the chances of it ever being activated again appear to be minimal considering also the continuing political situation in the area. >> >> Of course, it's the one entity I've needed for many years to have them all :)) > > > > >    Virus-free. www.avast.com > |
|
|
