CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation

To: Jeff AC0C <keepwalking188@ac0c.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation
From: Rudy Bakalov via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Reply-to: Rudy Bakalov <r_bakalov@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 22:47:17 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
So convenience trumps principles? This is not surprising.

Split on 80 and 40, sometimes even on 20, is a common practice during SSB 
contests.

Rudy N2WQ

Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate 
autocorrect.


> On Mar 15, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Jeff AC0C <keepwalking188@ac0c.com> wrote:
> 
> Sure you can.  Split is not generally used in contesting specifically because 
> of the dual spectrum use on one band.
> 
> There is some of that done by way of exception - especially on 40m - where 
> the common international band allocations are tight to begin with as a way to 
> expand the effective band.  But otherwise split is definitely frowned on. Too 
> bad; there are sometimes where a really rare DX guy shows up in a contest and 
> his rate is near zero because of the massive pile up all on one frequency...
> 
> 73/jeff/ac0c
> www.ac0c.com
> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Rudy Bakalov via CQ-Contest
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:45 PM
> To: Radio K0HB
> Cc: Helmut Mueller ; cq-contest@contesting.com ; W0MU Mike Fatchett
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation
> 
> 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 

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>