Logs yes, but not equipment, Like me, every QSO says if CW 7050 if SSB
7200 because old radio can not talk to computer.
Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 4/9/2017 4:23 PM, Matt NQ6N wrote:
Joe, I think something along those lines is a great idea and would add
to the number of operating strategies (and station optimization
strategies) that could be used tow in. Most logs include the exact
frequency the QSO was made on, so it would be possible to verify S&P
vs run.
73,
Matt NQ6N
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Joe <nss@mwt.net
<mailto:nss@mwt.net>> wrote:
Ok lets take this one step further, and it could be interesting,
but how to police it?
QSO Points.
Points made by CQing, = 1 QSO Point
Points made by S&Ping, = 2 points
Thoughts?
Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 4/8/2017 10:47 AM, Jim Neiger wrote:
Matt, let's take this to an another level of absurdity.
How is the new single operator 2BSIQ any less onerous? OK, I'm
transmitting on only one band at a time, but the pileups that
my dueling CQ's have generated on each band most likely never
stop, ergo, by my direct actions, I'm 'hogging' twice the
bandwidth. And the rarer my multiplier, most probably, the
bigger my pileups and I've maximized my HOGGING COEFFICIENT (HC).
One could say that multi-multi's W3LPL, K3LR et al have taken
their HC to the penultimate level by sometimes (incessantly)
CQing on six frequencies simultaneously. Should we eliminate
multi-multi's or state that they can never CQ on more than 3
bands at a any given moment? Just think how this will help
all the East Coasters who can't find a clear run frequency to
Europe!!
Or to the maxima HC absurdity: only select stations can ever
CQ. Most of us will designated with an HC of Zero and forever
be relegated to the ash heap of Search and Pounce. Assisted
and packet spots can take on a whole new level of appreciation
and the designated CQers can award trophies to those who
spotted them the most times thereby helping all of us by
opening up all of this newly found wide open frequency spectra.
Can't wait.
Vy 73
Jim Neiger N6TJ
On 4/8/2017 5:48 AM, Matt NQ6N wrote:
If the concern is bandwidth used, shouldn't split
operation be banned as well? How does same band dueling CQ
use more bandwidth than "listening on this frequency and
7050"?
In both cases it is the activity triggered by the running
station on both frequencies that prevents those
frequencies from being used by someone else.
Not arguing for banning either, just pointing out that if
bandwidth is the concern they are essentially identical
examples of "hogging" a scarce resource.
73,
Matt NQ6N
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 7:39 AM Jim Neiger
<n6tj@sbcglobal.net <mailto:n6tj@sbcglobal.net>
<mailto:n6tj@sbcglobal.net <mailto:n6tj@sbcglobal.net>>>
wrote:
i agree. Like a few more signals on any band are
suddenly going to
overwhelm everyone? Operators can, and will, adjust.
I remember the 2002 ARRL 10 Meters contest from ZD8.
The band was
loaded, every kc up to 29.2. To paraphrase Neil
Diamond's song:
Beautiful Noise...................
As far as I'm concerned, wall to wall signals from one
end of our
spectra to the other is music. Especially the next
five years of
solar
doldrums, we can only dream..............
Vy 73
Jim Neiger N6TJ
On 4/7/2017 10:16 AM, Stein-Roar Brobakken wrote:
> Hi guys
>
> Why not add the category SOMT single op multi
transmitter? 👍
>
> So those having skills to run multiple vfo at once
can do
practice their skills??
>
> People are just different and some manage to make it!!
>
> Best Regards,
> Stein-Roar Brobakken
> LB3RE K3RAG
> www.lb3re.com <http://www.lb3re.com>
<http://www.lb3re.com>
> post@lb3re.com <mailto:post@lb3re.com>
<mailto:post@lb3re.com <mailto:post@lb3re.com>>
> GSM +4748224421 <tel:%2B4748224421>// +4791999421
<tel:%2B4791999421>
>
>
>> Den 7. apr. 2017 kl. 17.20 skrev Ron Notarius W3WN
<wn3vaw@verizon.net <mailto:wn3vaw@verizon.net>
<mailto:wn3vaw@verizon.net <mailto:wn3vaw@verizon.net>>>:
>>
>> IMHO, let's not make too much out of this decision.
>>
>> As explained in the newsbite that made the
announcement, the
practice of
>> "dueling CQ's" was never intended to be permitted. Only
recently has
>> technology and (to be fair) operator skill advanced
to the
point where it
>> was possible.
>>
>> And now someone did it. Correctly pointing out that
within the
strict
>> letter of the contest rules in place, the practice
was not actually
>> prohibited.
>>
>> I know many believe "if it is not strictly
forbidden, it is
implicitly
>> allowed". On something like this, it is
unfortunate that
accepted practice
>> had to be explicitly mentioned. Regardless, an
unintended
consequence of
>> not spelling out this specific instance was that a
loophole was
created and
>> exploited.
>>
>> If you want to give a tip of the hat to the PJ4G
folks for
finding and
>> exploiting said loophole, well, they or someone on
the team did
the work and
>> uncovered it.
>>
>> The important thing is... They did not break the
rules, in fact
they
>> strictly adhered to the rules, as they were written
at the time.
>>
>> Now that it's been exposed, the loophole has been
closed and
the unintended
>> consequence should not happen again. And that is
how it should be.
>>
>> And that should be the end of that.
>>
>> 73, ron w3wn
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
antivirus
software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com
<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>>
>>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com
<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>>
>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com
<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|