[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] QZB (Suggestion)

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] QZB (Suggestion)
From: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:04:42 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I think we're all seeing this problem, but another method of dealing 
with it might be for contest loggers like N1MM to have the option of 
adding a random offset within a user-specified range, but only when 
clicking on a callsign in the bandmap or stepping through them.  For 
example, maybe I would set N1MM to offset my transmit frequency by a 
random amount within the range of +/- 30 Hz.  Someone else might set it 
for a random number within +/- 50 Hz.  Of course the actual offset would 
have to "stick" until the frequency was manually changed or until 
otherwise cleared.

Just a thought ...

Dave  AB7E

On 2/21/2011 6:07 AM, K6VVA - Rick wrote:
> During my part-time long haul high-latency Internet remote operation as
> KP2CW in the ARRL CW DX Contest this past weekend, compared to observations
> as VP2VVA in 2009, I'll ballpark about a TEN FOLD INCREASE in the frequency
> (pun) of a unique type of packet cluster related pileup problem.  I predict
> this will get worse year after year.
> Not just your basic run-of-the-mill contest mini-pileups, but of the type
> where everyone was exactly ZERO BEAT (or within a few Hz) apparently as a
> result of point-and-click with no single station loud enough to rise above
> the pack.  I'm usually pretty good at grabbing partial calls (or fractions
> thereof) to respond to, but at times with a deluge of S9+20dB signals
> (possibly just the top 'layer') all starting and ending as a unison ZERO
> BEAT 'pumping mass', it was impossible.  The swarm would start and stop,
> start and stop in unison, until someone finally someone woke up and moved
> off dead center a bit or slipped in a QRQ call during the momentary lull.
> What a time waster for everyone.  During several of these episodic events, I
> actually sent 'you guys are all zero beat' in hopes the sharper ops would
> grasp what was happening on my end and take evasive action.  Without some
> kind of head's up, who can really tell what's going on unless they are on
> the 'other end' ?
> So.......
> Having a simple Q-Signal to alert everyone as to this type of 'Ground Hog
> Day' scenario on the other end of the pileup could be productive for all.
> I'd suggest 'QSO' (for 'Spread Out'), but that one is already taken in the
> list of Q-Signals.  Therefore, my suggestion is to use 'QZB' (a/k/a You guys
> are ALL ZERO BEAT) as a head's up to move UP or DOWN a tad from dead center
> for these types of point-and-click packet spot pileup nightmares.  Checking
> my log, I did not find one single entry for a station with the suffix 'QZB'
> which is good :^)
> For those interested in Remote Contesting, I'll include some details on the
> KP2CW 'tragedies and triumphs' experienced over the weekend in my upcoming
> 3830 post.
> FWIW&  73...
> Rick, K6VVA * The Locust
> Remote Contesting Advocate
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
CQ-Contest mailing list

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