Eric, thanks for the idea of using the grid square locator info both as a
distance calculator and also providing the "geographic zone" as a
Mult! Some thought would be required to determine if an individual grid
square, or a combination of more than one, would be the optimum "Zone" area
for a Zone Mult. In addition, I like the idea of a serial number as part of
the exchange. That provides some "real time" feedback. I like these a
lot. This would make the exchange more of a challenge to copy (5NN EM00
#1234), provide real time feedback, and level the playing field world-wide.
For me, these are important, and if a sponsoring group got behind the
concept, it could become a terrific contest, the best indicator of operator
skill regardless of location.
Others have recommended increased points for LF work, like the WPX does for
the three LF bands. That might indeed encourage activity on those bands.
However this is needed in the WPX since there is no incentive to operate
these bands since the Prefixes are the mults. In this proposed concept, the
incentive to operate the LF bands would be that there are the "zone mults"
on each of these. Therefore I would *not* think that increased points on
the LF bands would be a good idea.
Jim George N3BB
>Hi Jim et al --
> Zones (either CQ or IARU) are not particularly geographically compact
> nor equivalent in size. A UA3A experiences vastly different propagation
> than a UT5, for instance. I would suggest considering a different basis
> for a multiplier; e.g., the grid field indication. Grid fields (the "FN"
> part of "FN41") are pretty large.
> This would also be an opportunity to move to a more meaningful
> exchange; e.g., grid square + serial number.
> I wonder if there is really enough interest in this to do a one-off
> proof of concept contest to see if this would be fun for the
> participants. That requires moving past the talk-talk stage to having a
> real set of people willing to commit to "instant adjudication", etc.
>But without some trials, we're just engaging in mental entertainment.
> If successful, maybe an existing contest like IARU could be changed to
> adopt the model.
>-- Eric K3NA
>on 06 Oct 22 Sun 16:22 Jim George said the following:
>>My recommendation is for a new contest, based on using:
>>(1) distance as a basis for the value of a contact, and also permitting a
>>contact with one's own country, and,
>>(2) mults being a zone rather than a DXCC entity. Using DXCCs means that
>>every contest will be dominated by those who can have the best skip into
>>Using a grid square and also a zone (such as the ITU zone) as the
>>exchange will make copying the exchange meaningful, enable the scoring to
>>calculate the "distance value," and the zones will make the mults
>>exciting. It's time to get rid of the DXCC entity as a mult. The IARU
>>uses the ITU zones, which is good, but it messes things up by (IMHO)
>>having all the HQ mults, which is another way of making EU dominate, and
>>it does not give credit for distance.
>>That's the proposal, and it would be interesting for some sponsoring body
>>to adopt these concepts.
>>Jim George N3BB
CQ-Contest mailing list