[amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs

Tim Marek K7XC at charter.net
Mon Jan 24 13:25:28 PST 2011

Hi Randy...

I spent weeks and weeks over 2 years hand typing ALL of my old paper logs 
(HF and VHF) into a database program and kept it updated fairly regular till 
2006 or so...

My old database didnt work well under the then latest version of windows and 
it became a project that fell by the wayside..

2 years ago I sorted that file (100,000+ records) based my my callsign, then 
on the grid I was in at the time... I took all the DM09 contatcts and dumped 
them into LOTW. That filled in my DXCC, and WAS files fairly well for HF and 
VHF... I then gathered up all the Cabrillo submission files from them to 
now, signed them individually, and sublitted them to LOTW as well.

With the advent of LOTW VUCC support, I am now converting ALL my 
files(sorted by call then location)  into individual files, converting them 
into the propper format, digitally sign, and then upload them into LOTW.

At that point, ALL of the data from my various ham radio efforts will then 
be backed up at LOTW, and... in a position to be of use to me (and others) 
for many years to come.

No one said it would be easy to get up to speed... Nothing worthwhile ever 
is... you assumed I have done it all electronically from day one... I HAVE 

What I did do was the hard work of hand typing them all in (and yes it 
sucked) but now all that hard work is showing me that it was all well worth 

73s de Tim - K7XC - DM09nm... sk

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Randy" <hamradio at oz.net>
To: "Tim Marek" <K7XC at charter.net>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs

> Hi Tim:
> I agree LoTW will be a great thing for VUCC, especially for future, 
> computer-logged contacts where uploading to LoTW is simple.  But I wonder 
> about older QSOs.  I guess if you have lots of computer-logged QSOs and 
> can convert them into VUCC compatible files easily, sure why not go ahead. 
> But even for those, and especially for old paper logged QSOs, I wonder.
> For one thing, if somebody really wanted your QSL in the past (for VUCC or 
> anything else) they would have already exchanged paper cards. And for 
> another thing, I find that for my operating from CN74 and CN75, at least, 
> I only get requests for cards from maybe 10% of the QSOs I make, 
> indicating that nobody really cares about QSLs for the vast majority of 
> QSOs, even from a semi-rare grid like CN74/CN75.
> Of course for an even rarer grid there would be some increase in QSL 
> interest.  But really, unless you are one of the extremely rare breed of 
> operator that can see the possibility of actually getting ALL grids for 
> FFMA in their lifetime, one grid is as just good as another, rare or not.
> So I guess my point is, as a by-product of computer logging of future 
> QSOs, LoTW will be really great.  Especially for operators that make large 
> numbers of contacts each year.  But as far as everyone hustling to put all 
> their old QSOs in LoTW it seems like a lot of collective work with very 
> little payback except to a very few.
> Randy, W7HR
> Port Orchard, WA
>> Personally, I dont understant why everyone isn't getting setup right now 
>> to dump their logs online to (at the very least protect those rare and 
>> precious contacts from being lost forever) and collect those contact 
>> credits w/o lifting a pen to paper or licking a single stamp...
>> 73s de Tim - K7XC - DM09nm.... sk
>> PS: I have been pushing LOTW for years to make this happen. Its not 
>> perfect, but compared to the old ways, its a VAST IMPROVEMENT!
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1202 / Virus Database: 1435/3400 - Release Date: 01/24/11

More information about the AMSAT-BB mailing list