The following discussion is from the contest advice column in one
of the recent issues of the Beetle Valley Radio Club's "Thorax"
magazine. I found it helpful in clearing up misunderstandings,
and have reproduced it here for any of you that may not subscribe
or have misplaced your own copies.
73,
Dick N6AA N6AA@Delphi.COM
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Dear Mr. Contest,
Is it true that a bunch of blind guys can operate from a big
multi-op station, and claim that they are single-op just because
they can't see each other? This doesn't seem fair.
Billy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Billy,
Yes, you've got it right Billy. As long as they can't see each
other, they are technology, not operators. This point is well
accepted in the contest community today.
Please don't gouge your eyes out to remedy this inequity. There
are many innovative ideas out there which sighted persons can use
to effectively accomplish the same thing.
You and your sighted team could operate in separate rooms, or
have operating positions facing away from each other. You could
wear blinders like race-horses do. However, be careful not to
peek while operating, because, let's face it, if you saw another
operator, it would destroy the meaning of the single-operator
category.
If you need to leave an operating position, and might see another
operator, simply temporarily declare non-operator status by
saying something like "Not an operator," or "operator off" first.
As long as you have done this, you can walk around, as well as,
look at and talk to another active operator. Be sure to say,
"operator active" before resuming making contacts.
I recommend connecting operating positions with computers and
packet-links. People can send calls and frequencies or any other
information to each other electronically. This makes anything
perfectly legal, as long as operators do not see each other while
in active operator status.
Caution: Avoid having any mirrors in the shack. You could
inadvertently see another active operator, and then be
classified as multi-op.
See Billy, don't be upset at what may initially seem to be an
inequity in the rules. Let innovation and technology overcome it.
73, and good luck in the contest,
Mr. Contest
>From Tony Brock-Fisher <fisher@hp-and.an.hp.com> Wed Aug 17 12:26:22 1994
From: Tony Brock-Fisher <fisher@hp-and.an.hp.com> (Tony Brock-Fisher)
Subject: Dollars per QSO
Message-ID: <9408171126.AA06162@hp-and.an.hp.com>
One interesting facet of contesting is the way in which the cost per QSO
($/Q) increases exponentially. For example, the contester running 100 watts
to a low beam can drasticly increase his score (Q's) with only a moderate
incremental investment in equipment, such as an amplifier. However,
as this contester progresses up the scale of contesting performance,
the expense of achieving the next level of performance increases.
Question: What is the improvement likely from going from 1100 watts
output power to 1499.9 watts output power? (Let's not start the GAS
thread again...) This increase in power is a big jump in cost, from
the old faithful 2x 3-500 amp to something ceramic. I've had
winning contesters tell me it wasn't much, but with an acre of
aluminum in the sky, maybe it doesn't make as much difference.
I'm busting my butt for another 2db of antenna performance, and wondering
if another 1-2 db in amp power would be significant. Thoughts?
-Tony, K1KP, fisher@hp-and.an.hp.com
|