CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet statistics

To: "Maurizio Panicara" <i4jmy.mauri@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet statistics
From: "Yuri VE3DZ" <va3uz@sympatico.ca>
Reply-to: Yuri VE3DZ <va3uz@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:57:14 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
So the best way would be one single-op category (like it used to be many
years before) without power separation + allowing cluster use for all
categories (no self-spotting allowed).
Also one category for Multi-Ops.
This would also eliminate huge "QRP" and low power signals (and records) and
some other "technical issues".

73  Yuri  VE3DZ

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Maurizio Panicara" <i4jmy.mauri@gmail.com>
To: "Marijan Miletic, S56A" <s56a@bit.si>
Cc: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 4:22 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet statistics


> > I am afraid that the same kind of "smart" thinking applies on excesive
> > power!
>
> Power is another issue and deserves another thread.
> Technically, any ERP can be obtained with almost any input power
> level, and no one can verify remotely, the only plain field occurs in
> WRTC.
> Packet problem instead, assisted/unassisted, can be easily overcomed
> updating to actual days and merging the categories in a single one.
> Sometimes, hypocrisy is enforced or engaged by stupid rules.
>
> 73,
> Mauri I4JMY

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>