[Company Logo Image]


N2EE        Tesla Radio Foundation, Inc.       NT1E

Home Photos Location


Visitor No.

Hit Counter

Tesla Academy

Tesla Coil Christmas Tree

WSJ article


Comments about TC - as received at the early stages of formulation of rules

I am really impressed with all the hard work you have put in. My printer is working on it now for detailed study. Nice web page,,,,so fast too.
I like the name and most of the details....but, always a but...I like single op single band....and want to use packet too! Please make it so.

K3BU: Thanks! We will summarize and consider all comments for possible final decision. We tend to keep single op A and O categories packet free, at least until TC grows and there are many stations asking for it. For now we shouldn't spread it out too thin, too many categories.

October is already crowded with contests, some extremely popular. Here's a list of contests scheduled for the 2nd weekend in October: ....
The Pennsylvania QSO Party is a major state QSO party in the U.S.

K3BU: OK, so far no suggestions for better date, we will see how things develop. April might the best date, although Fall is attractive for N Hemisphere, time in the summer to rearm, WX is guaranteed no snow or ice. Could be good warm up for CQ WW.

Unfortunately I do not agree with the concept of using the first three as a multiplier. The use of a four digit grid square number will result in some big numbers, but one has to remember that these numbers would apply only to this contest. The scores alone could not be compared to other contests to see which is the "better" contest.

K3BU: We are not setting up our scoring system to compare with other contests, just looking for practicality. Too many multipliers (like WPX) tend to devaluate the value of multipliers and use of more tactics, rather than just "run 'em" - perpetual CQing.

I commend you on the Tesla Radio club proposed draft rules for a contest that evens the playing field for all participants. Operating from the middle of the Pacific has been a major disadvantage for us and any attempt to take away the advantage that others have enjoyed over the years is welcome news.
This is what we would like to see in any new contest.
Scoring MUST be distance based to even the playing field. Low band contacts should be worth more points than high band contacts.
Grid fields used as multipliers i.e. DM, PL etc., not grid squares.
Grid squares used as an exchange
24 hour contest period in the fall sometime
assume the use of packet in all categories
NO HQ stations as multipliers
We feel that such a contest would incorporate the best of all the contests and be more accommodating to the mass contesting community worldwide.

K3BU: Distance based scoring for HF and high QSO rate contest gets too complicated. With our scoring scheme, there would be some advantages for heavily populated areas on low bands, but then remote locations would have advantage on high bands. Sorry no packet for single op, packet means assistance by someone else and that belongs to multi op, or separate Single OP Assisted, like we have P. Packet messed up DXing, lets keep contesting sane.

Serial number should stay!
I also suspect you will have problems with the part requiring all participants to send in logs, or only counting verifiable contacts. I even have some concern with that one. Who wants to put in a full effort only to find a great share of the points are lost because the many casual participants didn't send you a log.
The difference between claimed and published score might make one look bad. I think of all the things you put down, that one will be the biggest problem. I know lots of contesters that don't send in logs unless they think they will place in the top of their call area or such. All those qso points would be lost. Not a good deal.
If you need verification, the maybe having all stations get bonus points for exchanging QTC info would be a good way. QTCs also make after the fact log doctoring more difficult. Besides, QTCs are great fun!
I hope you can find a weekend that works and that this starts the new century in a big way. You have my support.
Hey, I may even sponsor a trophy/plaque for Single Band Assisted (combined cw/ssb of course)
I don't see any possibility of a certificate for highest score in my W8 call area. Only reward, besides having fun, is to be 1st place USA. I really think you need to re-think this one.

K3BU: You got them, serial numbers are in. Requiring logs, we are looking perhaps a bit ahead. In the beginning there will be grace period and some obviously good contacts with no logs would be counted. But there is no excuse for those who read the rules, are serious about the contest, not to send the logs. If they don't, all who worked them will suffer equally. QTC are for contests that stretch and have low participation, they fill in the "holes" in activity. Certifcates will be issued depending on density, we might go by squares, or groups of them, or call areas. Maybe even electronic ones, just download it and print it. Instant service.

As a lifelong (well, at least since I was 5 years old) fan of Tesla, and a relatively new contester (just into my second year), I consider this as a rare (so far) opportunity to operate in a contest from it's inception until I can't operate anymore. Thank you.
The contest sounds like it will work, but I have one question. Why are QSOs with stations that do not submit a log 0 points? A true unique would justify this, but if the same station shows up in several logs, with the same (or very similar) exchange, why not allow the point? There is no way to determine whether a guy is going to submit a log when you're working him - or would the regulars just skip calls that they aren't familiar with?

K3BU: Glad to pull out some Tesla fans. We hope to spread the word and publicize this Genius. Again, we will probably consider grace period on no logs until we get up to speed.

I took to liberty of posting your original TESLA Cup post to the canada-contest@gps.andor.net Reflector.
Serial numbers are good. Seems like an "interesting" exchange, a nice change from some of the usual "brain dead exchanges" in a lot of the contests and qso parties.
You will get lots of comments on the above (no logs - no points), I think I know why you are doing it, though. Let's wait and see what the consensus is. It's good that you are leaving a lot of this open-ended for discussion and possible revisions.
Excellent stuff! I like it.

Nice work on the draft rules! The contest sounds interesting and I would definitely participate. I see two big problems with the draft, however.
First, the October weekend is the Pennsylvania QSO Party, a BIG contest and one of my favorites. (2nd - no log - no points)
The grid mult may need some tweaking. Either the first two or all four might be a better choice. I'd prefer the first two as the
mult, but use all four in the exchange. Otherwise, I like the concept. Count me in on it!

K3BU: Dates are still open and subject to finalizing. I think two char. grids is not enough, and four would be too much, but we will see. If we make changes later, they should be in the direction of increasing the scores for records sake. We might go for 4 if it looks better.
Let's keep in mind, we are shooting for world premier event, the mother of all contests that would give serious contester means of fighting it out and give them close to equal chance at scoring according to ability who works most QSOs in widest area in particular category. Definitely not another QSO party or begging for QSOs contest. There is plenty of those. What we are missing is contest when one can have decent chance from his home station to make it into top ten.

Will (DJ7AA ?)
Don't we have enough contests running?? 73 Wil

K3BU: Probably yes, but none like this one. If you like to try to measure yourself against others with fairly fair scoring, this is it. Otherwise choose whichever you like.

I'm just back from 'http://members.aol.com/K3BU/TeslaCup.htm' and really like your proposed rules. No log submission, no points. This will really tighten down on valid Qs, an idea whose time has come. It happens in contests now, and the only reason the Q is valid is because the call shows up in other logs. So, I agree, no log, no points. Sorry, guys, this is a serious contest.
I like the 3-character grid exchange, as well. Covers dense areas as well as sparse areas. Thats a pretty good chunk of the world. Very meaningful for propagation purposes. Serial number? Sheesh, who cares, with the no-log, no-point rule, what good would a serial number do as far as software trying to verify the contact? Keep it if you want, but my preference would be to put it in the bit bucket.
This is serious, I will sponsor the Single OP, CW, ALL BAND plaque. I sponsor a plaque in the Stew Perry and I would really like to be a part of the Tesla award program.

K3BU: Phew! And I thought nobody likes it the way it is, started to feel down. Thanks Joe, your comments and support very much appreciated, especially coming from serious contester like you! We will see what others will say about serial number. We can always drop them, when contest gets too hot and they are in the way, it can only make things faster and better. Thanks for the trophy!

N6NZ: (via eHam.net)
1. Grid "stripe" multipliers for HF is an idea that has been rattling around in my head for a while, too, so interesting to see someone else come up with same. I don't think it "levels the playing field" geographically, though, as you hope. Too much difference in population density around the globe to ever solve that one.
2. 3 pts for CW and 2 points for phone won't even up the value. Cal QSO Party counts 3 for CW and 2 for phone, and the top stations work about 80% phone and 20% CW. 2:1 ratio probably closer to "balance", if that is what you are after.
3. N6TR and N5KO are the absolute guru's of computerized log checking with years of experience in various contests. I have heard them say that you can "synthesize" missing logs after the submitted percentage reaches a critical mass. Many casual operator logs are 100% present in the logs of the hard-core. You might consider how to make use of that redundancy in the log checking system.

K3BU: 1. Much better and easier to digest than any other scheme. Some stations will have advantages on low bands (high density), some on high bands (remote areas), but none of this 3 pointers for next door continental QSO. 2. Difference here is that we have separate parts CW and phone not at the same time. 3. We are after those who are serious contesters, they will read the rules, enter the contest and send the logs (eventually). In the beginning we will have grace period for accepting no log QSOs. As news and popularity of TC spreads around, we will have no problem with logs. Everybody else will be on the same boat. We are looking for computer gurus to help with log processing and above concerns.

K5TR: (via eHam.net)
Why not just operate one of the existing grid square contests? WWL - http://www.okdxc.cz/WWL.HTM or TOEC - http://www.qsl.net/toec/grid.htm For more of my thoughts on this see these posts to CQ-Contest: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/9908/0310.html and http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/9908/0380.html

K3BU: When you compare rules, categories and scoring system, it is like why do you not drive VW Bug instead of Cadillac or Rolls Royce? I was hoping that Czech contest would turn out like TC, they asked for my comments, but then ignored them all and went ahead with what you see. It is not just another Grid Square contest, It is Tesla Cup - World Championship Contest where scoring system allows for fair comparison of stations and operator skills. Time will tell, people will vote with their logs. Just like any other contest, this one will either flourish or fade away.

Yuri, you definately have your head on square and are a man of vision. The concept of making certificates available on-line is a good one! Gee, if
I deserve one and want it fast to fill that blank spot on my shack wall I can print my own. Terrific idea. That would help keep costs down for the
event and solve the wait for years problem so many other events seem to have. This also would allow you to add a couple categories, I hope sooner than later....SOA-Single Band for one....
I see there is a proposed trophy for single operator single band 160, currently not sponsored. I wish to sponsor this award.

K3BU: Thanks for sponsoring the trophy, you got it! Yes, those having color printers can have certificates on line in color. Unclaimed ones will be mailed.

Looks like the making of an exciting contest!
1. I echo the comments about conflicts with other contests, especially State QSO Parties -- in particular, the PA QSO . The April dates should be much better. 4th weekend in October and 2nd Weekend of November might be a good alternative.
2. As for no points for non-submitted logs, how about giving credit for the transmitted portion and not the received portion? I can see where log checking would be much easier with only submitted logs and would be most fair to everyone. Either way, this would not be an issue regarding my decision to operate.
3. I haven't seen any comments regarding off-times. Although I'm still fairly young in comparison, these long contests tend to reduce the "fun" factor. How about consideration to more time off, maybe 3 or 4 hours and 1-3 or 4 breaks per CW/SSB portion? This can make strategy a bigger issue.
4. On the exchange issue, I would like to see something even more structured, like in the NA Sprints, which involve the receiving stations' callsign. I can go either way with regard to serial number, but would lean toward not having serial numbers in lieu of more structure to the exchange.
5. If you do require serial numbers, I suggest having multi-ops and multi/singles start their sequential numbering from 1 on each band operated.
} K3BU
> K3BU <exchange info>
} K1KY TU (or TC?) <exchange info>
> TU (or TC) K1KY
Making the callsign a required component should reduce logging/dupe errors. Think of the TU or TC as promoting international courtesy, replacing the senseless RS(t) report and providing a prelude to the exchange. Encourage/Require callsign at the end of a qso for the running station .. no QRZ's or whatever. I like the idea of the first 3 in the grid square for mults, and would not be opposed to 4. "2 is too few!"
6. How about a Guest category with no packet?
7. I assume from reading that single-ops will not be allowed to operate "two radios" as we all know it. Although I like operating "two radio - singleop" I think this really helps to level the playing field and should increase the "fun" factor while reducing some task overload. Or while you are at it, take the plunge and make a separate "Single-op Two radio/transmitter/limited to one transmitted signal at a time" into another category as many have suggested in the past.

K3BU: Thanks for in depth comments Tom. 1. Looks like we will end up with one (initially?) in April. 4th weekend in Oct? CQ WW?
2. Good idea to credit 1 point for "flaky" unconfirmed QSOs. Should we also allow multiplier count for "half" cfm QSO?
3. More off time is interesting, compromise between "I wanna operate more" and "I wanna play more strategy". I kind of think that 2 hrs is about right, but lets se what majority (of serious) contesters thinks.
4. Don't want to complicate exchange too much. We are talking fast contest in relatively short time, no dragging times expected.
5. Included, to prevent starting at 1000 :-), Multi-Single should number sequentially, it complicates temptations to run more transmitters simultaneously, plus gives picture how they doing overall.
6. Maybe later when we mushroom, in the beginning we don't want to spread too thin, have categories with no takers. Always room for expansion.
7. Single op unassisted can use as many transmitters, transceivers as heshe can handle, just one signal at the time. No simultaneous CQing and working mults, even on single band. (Or would it make it more interesting and push the technology envelope?)

suggestion...as you revise the rules, set the text color to red or yellow, for the parts that have been changed and post the revision date also on the web page so I don't have to read it all to find out what has changed since I last looked....hi - terrific job you are doing Yuri!

K3BU: Done, I was thinking that we might need it. Thanks!

there is an idea wandering thru my head, how about adding a bit of the sprint fun and add a rule stating that whenever someone holding a frequency hands out a serial number which is a multiple of 100 (or maybe 200), has to leave his QRG to the calling station.....
Generally I like the rules! Had some difficulties understanding why you dont want to use distance-based scoring, because I still think a 10000km QSO should be worth more than a 500km QSO. On the other hand I understand that it might be too much bias in favor of those who sit half-DX away from highly populated areas (like for Western EU every easy USA QSO is still around 4000km). Anyway I am not 100% happy with it but cannot think of some other (uncomplicated) method....
The other point that came up on the reflector is giving additional bonus to low band QSOs. I would be in favor of this, even if it is just a small bonus mult, like 1.5, so please dont close the file on this one.

K3BU: sprint style QSY rule might be fun, but I think is a bit out of place for this type of contest. How would one try to nail that multiplier? Moving target? Low band bonus is interesting, we are keeping it active.

Were I the one to write this part of the rules I would limit Single Op stations to 20 of 24 hours with off times to be a minimum of one half hour. For me, I would take most of this off time in one shot to be fresher for the next event/mode.

best congrats for the tremedous amount fo work done so far!
I would recommend a new category: D. SINGLE OPERATOR DUO BAND (any two band) - operating ONE BAND could be OK but, since propagation conditions are involved, there is the possibility of a lot of dead hours, while with two band these could be much limited, enhancing the presence of stations on the bands and consequently increasing the participation.

"Contacts with stations that do not send logs are worth one point. Multiplier credit can be claimed only for (verified) complete error free QSOs."
I also think that for the first couple events you should state up front your desire to get logs from everyone but that until the contest gets established you will score it without this requirement. i.e. not striping points or multipliers away just because you can't verify them.
After you see how much percentage of logs get turned in you will know if this requirement is indeed practical. I believe many will not enter due to the logs received for verification clause. When you say you will be lenient in the first events, that is not clear enough and can lead people to think your decisions will be arbitrary and inconsistant. It would be better to make clear your intentions up front.
I still want to see bonus QSO points for low band contacts.
Low power should be up to 150 watts, not 100.
Do you think you will be able to get CQ, CQ Contest, QST, or NCJ to also publish the announcements and results. This would boost participation and interest. I want to see more exchange of ideas on the CQ Contest reflector.

Congratulations on a fine effort in getting things started. Here's a suggestions that I hope you'll consider.
Multiplier - first 2 characters only of Locator Square ID. Reason: Even with 2-character (large square) mults, there will be the potential for a large number of multipliers, per band, in comparison to the average number of QSOs per band.
With 3 character mults, there will potentially be 10 times more multipliers.
In my experience, when the number of multipliers is a high percentage of the number of QSOs, multipliers are devalued and the final score becomes largely dependent on QSO totals.

I have followed carefully your efforts and read the draft rules. If you want my very modest opinion a contest in order to be popular needs the casual operator to participate. The casual participant will operate if there is a lot of DX and the exchange is simple to understand. With an exchange like FN22 HA 001I doubt the Tesla Cup will ever be even a minor contest. The casual participant will be scared away and when that happens there will be just a few people endlessly calling TEST with few takers...

My first impression is there are too many variables in the exchange. I
don't mind having an exchange that challenges the other station to make an accurate copy of it. But you are proposing the contest be run in a time of year when the low bands are still very noisy. A more complicated exchange will discourage low band operating from the southern areas.
The complicated exchange will add a bigger differential in success on 160
from the NE to the other parts of the USA. Thus adding to the east coast advantage. I know there will be a big difference as I have operated in both places. I would suggest grid squares or serial numbers, but not both. Good luck with it.

My comments on Tesla Cup:
1.Exchange - I think it is too complicated Keep it - FN22 001 - thus you have different exchange for every contact.
2. Date - Second weekend of October
3. Do not apply penalties for wrong copied exchanges. Point system is OK as suggested.
4. Multipliers - Multiplier coming from working a station which has not sent a log, must be valid and counted, too.
5.Categories - Too complicated. A. is OK / O. is OK / P. I think should be removed. Simply follow the CQWW categories and add LOW Power for M-S and M- M . Guest operators should be allowed to operate in regular categories of SOSB or SOAB.
6 LOGS. You CAN NOT force anyone to send you a log Yuri. This is completely a decision of the given person! Paper logs should be allowed, too. In many countries Internet is still a good dream for great part of amateurs.


1) You cannot assume that serious, let alone casual entrants will know their grid square. In the rules, you need to have a link to a Grid Square conversion program. Here is one possible site: http://www.amsat.org/amsat/toys/gridconv.html
2) If you are going to eliminate QSOs when no logs are received, at a minimum you need to get most of the major contest software writers to accommodate your contest. If there is no contest software, I think you will severely limit your participation (especially after the no-log grace period).
3) If a major entrant submits a paper log, will you accept it? In general, how are you going to treat paper logs? Will you convert them to electronic form for scoring?
4) Even the king of contests, the CQ WW Contest only receives logs from about 10-15% of the valid callsigns that are active in the contest (and I think about 50%?? of the logs received are electronic logs). Personally I have no interest in entering a contest where 90% of my contacts are eliminated because there are no logs!
5) What constitutes a valid SENT exchange? What if I send the wrong exchange every once in a while, will anyone be penalized? For example, I operate at K6KM, and K6ZM stations, I know when I get tired, I sometimes mix up the calls. The station may correctly copy the exchange, but it was incorrectly sent by the other station. I use this as an example, but it happens often by many people.
6) If you want this to be a serious contest, you should read through the CQ WW rules to add similar wording that will cut down on the amount of cheating. The CQ WW has about the best rules out there (Yeah, I know many will disagree), but their rules do cut out a lot of areas where people will cheat.


Thanks for comments, keep thinking and keep them ideas coming!
(We prefer comments how to make it better, rather than why it wouldn't work :-)

Yuri, K3BU e-mail


Home ] Up ]

Last modified: 03/07/12