[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Assisted / ????

To: "CQ-CONTEST" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Assisted / ????
From: "Rex Maner" <k7qq@netzero.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 00:46:46 -0000
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

In my worls   Assisted is when I use  Packet  /     Telnet   etc.

If   I ask someone  during a QSO if they have heard a NE station  I don't 
consider it assisted if they say  yes they are on 14.296.00345   .    Now I 
have done it all on HF and the band that I'm using,   SOME pureist would say 
WELL  he got help with   NE   .. and  YES  I  did but remember  the assisted 
class is for use of       Packet/ Telnet   spotting network    not  asking a 
Question during a contact ???

IS Quack outta Line  ???

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m@msn.com>
To: "'Hans K0HB'" <k-zero-hb@earthlink.net>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:22 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Assisted vs Unassisted (was Re: Real Time Scoreboards)

> It's clear from reading posts on this subject over the years that there's 
> a
> difference between what the rules require and personal definitions for
> "assisted" and "single-op".
> The rules for single-op unassisted refer only to operating, logging and
> spotting, and specifically forbid the use of DX spotting networks. They do
> not require that I develop all information pertinent to the contest by
> myself, that I gather the information on-the-air, or that the information 
> be
> gathered only during the contest. That's a purely personal definition. 
> It's
> also impossible to enforce such definitions because violations can't be
> detected.
> IMHO, such narrow interpretations stifle innovation in the single-op
> unassisted category, and would rule out use of new technology and tools. 
> For
> example, I should be free to use NG3K's announced DX operations list or 
> the
> YCCC contest cookbook, both of which are compiled by others, are posted on
> the Internet, and can be accessed before, during or after the contest. I 
> can
> also use WWV propagation forecasts, real-time propagation web sites,
> propagation prediction programs, grayline programs (on my local PC or the
> Internet), etc. The rules simply do not forbid use of these tools.
> Using WWV or Internet propagation information is a far cry from using 
> packet
> spots. I use propagation information to get an idea of how conditions are
> evolving during the contest. I look at the K index to see if things are
> likely to get better or worse. As we all know, that's not a particularly
> reliable indicator. The information might figure into my decision of 
> whether
> to take off time, but so do a lot of other factors. It's a crapshoot at
> best: I've missed openings because the propagation prediction was too
> pessimistic and I've waited for openings that never materialized because 
> the
> propagation prediction was too optimistic. Perhaps the best information 
> I've
> gotten has been from real-time auroral plots. But all that does is explain
> to me why conditions are so good or so lousy to northern Europe. A big
> auroral cloud tells me that stations further south are going to kick my
> butt. Other than that, the propagation information isn't reliable or
> real-time enough to tell me, for example, what bands are open to where. I
> like to look at the information because I'm trying to learn more about
> propagation patterns over the long run.
> The rules were designed to specifically forbid use of packet spots, more
> than one person operating the radio(s), and more than one transmitted 
> signal
> on the air at a time. That's it. The notion that all information must be
> gathered on-the-air during the contest is purely in the minds of some
> contesters.
> 73, Dick WC1M
CQ-Contest mailing list

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