The same argument can be made for working so split. Sounds like the two use
cases of using extra spectrum are treated differently. You can't pick and chose
and favor one vs the other.
Rudy N2WQ
Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate
autocorrect.
> On Mar 15, 2017, at 3:54 PM, Radio K0HB <kzerohb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Helmut, I don't think that this resistance to interleaved-CQ is
> "anti-innovation" at all, but resistance to "excess occupancy".
>
> By any reasonable measure, running interleaved CQs on two QRG's in the same
> band consumes two operating channels on that band. In the existing period
> of limited propagation, many would consider such double-occupancy of a
> finite resource to be selfish, not innovative.
>
> Suppose for a moment, that I could "innovate" a method of interleaving 10
> CQs on a single band. Would you applaud my innovation, or would you curse
> my hoggery?
>
>
>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:07 Helmut Mueller <helmut@photo42.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Guys.
>>
>> These "new" techniques are just the evolution of contest, deal with it!
>>
>> There are different contests out there who have different rules and smart
>> people REALLY understand the rules and apply every effort that is allowed
>> by the rules! This is called contesting art or INOVATION!
>>
>> You want to make all contests the same? Keep whining!
>>
>> Centurys ago someone came up with stacked antennas: I bet there were
>> people moaning about this.
>> Centurys ago someone came up with computer logging and keying: I bet there
>> were people moaning about this.
>> Centurys ago someone came up with SO2R: People were moaning about this.
>> There are many more examples like this ... now we have SO2RUN or
>> Interleave QSOs!
>>
>> I call this innovation! It is fantastic!
>>
>> This is from the PJ2T website:
>>
>> Dedicated to fun, international friendship, and advancement of the
>> contesting art through superior operating technique and maximum application
>> of technology
>>
>> Could not say it any better!
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Helmut DF7ZS
>>
>> df7zs.de
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] Im Auftrag von
>> W0MU Mike Fatchett
>> Gesendet: Wednesday, 15 March, 2017 04:50 AM
>> An: cq-contest@contesting.com
>> Betreff: Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs on Two or More
>> Frequencies in the Same Band
>>
>> If you agree that the rules need to be changed, you need to make your
>> ARRL Division Directors aware of your feelings. I believe there is a
>> meeting coming up soon and I believe that this item can be taken up at that
>> time.
>>
>> Alternating CQ's on different bands is pretty common on RTTY. I think
>> that this practice should be allowed and monitored to make sure that
>> stations are adhering to the one transmitted signal at a time for Single
>> ops.
>>
>> I can only image the situation where we have a wall of stations at
>> 14.150 going up and 14.347 going down for alternating cq's. Add in EU and
>> the Caribbean and we have a big mess.
>>
>> W0MU
>>
>>
>>> On 3/14/2017 5:08 PM, Dick Green WC1M wrote:
>>> I strongly support Frank's proposal, but the prohibition should apply to
>> Single Ops, too, as it does in CQ WW.
>>>
>>> I realize that multi-op stations are more likely to be equipped to do
>> alternating CQs on the same band (A and B radios with two ops on each band,
>> multiple antennas per band with good isolation), but it certainly can be
>> done in an SO2R station. If only one band is open enough to run, then the
>> impact on the spectrum is the same.
>>>
>>> Is there a compelling reason to allow Single Ops to do alternating CQs
>> on the same band?
>>>
>>> Actually, I think a case could be made for banning alternating CQs
>> altogether. I'd regret that because I've sometimes used it as a Single Op
>> to boost rate or fight boredom, but it definitely does use up more
>> spectrum. If only two bands are open in a big contest, that spectrum is
>> likely to be very limited. What if a rare mult running low power can't find
>> a place to CQ because the alternating CQers are taking up more than their
>> share of space? What about the impact on non-contesters?
>>>
>>> 73. Dick WC1M
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: donovanf@starpower.net [mailto:donovanf@starpower.net]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 2:01 PM
>>> To: CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs on Two or More
>>> Frequencies in the Same Band
>>>
>>>
>>> I recommend that alternating CQs on two or more frequencies on the same
>> band be prohibited immediately in all ARRL HF contests, exactly as it is
>> now prohibited in all CQ WW DX Contests and for multi-operators in the IARU
>> HF Championship.
>>>
>>> The reason for my recommendation is that the recent success of the
>>> PJ4G team in CQing on alternate frequencies on the same band (both on
>>> 20 and 15 meters) in the recent ARRL SSB DX Contest will inevitably be
>>> applied -- very soon -- by other multi-operator competitors in future
>>> ARRL contests. Unfortunately this will be to the very considerable
>>> detriment of other HF spectrum users
>>> -- both contesters and non-contesters -- because of the very limited
>> available spectrum on every HF band below 28 MHz.
>>>
>>> The obvious course of action is to simply apply existing IARU HF
>> Championship rule 4.3.2.1 to all multi-operator categories in all ARRL HF
>> contests.
>>>
>>> 4.3.2.1. Alternating CQs on two or more frequencies on the same band is
>> not permitted.
>>>
>>> http://www.arrl.org/iaru-hf-championship
>>>
>>> A CAC sub-committee is currently engaged in a Rules Consolidation
>> Project to consolidate “The General Rules of all ARRL Contests”
>>> “The General Rules for all ARRL contests Below 30 MHz” and individual
>> contest rules into a single rule set for each of the ARRL HF Contests.
>>>
>>> In addition to the consolidation of the rules structure, the ARRL
>> Programs and Services Committee (PSC) asked the team to develop any
>> accompanying commentary they choose as to areas where the perceive that the
>> rules might benefit from revision and, where appropriate, to suggest
>> revised language.
>>>
>>> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/2016/J
>>> uly/Doc_24_0716.pdf
>>>
>>> While the CAC's role is solely to respond to projects and issues
>> assigned by the ARRL Programs and Services Committee; the CAC chairman can
>> recommend future CAC projects and issues to the PSC.
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Frank
>>> W3LPL
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
> --
> 73, de Hans, K0HB
> --
> "Just a boy and his radio"™
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|