Interesting you are heading down this path -
We are a technologist hobby in danger of being run over by troglodytes.
Look at any category that allows spotting - is not this the same as multiple
operators Multiplexed - all at remote locations?
Rules with many contests allowing spotting assistance for all categories - But
again is it an operator and a radio?
>From our remote VK Location we accept that it is unlikely for us to win, it is
>unlikely for us to find enough operators to mount a solid MM and so we have
>taken on M2 as our preferred system.
In M2, we (VK4KW) run 2 rigs - usually without any cluster support and sit two
bums in chairs and have a fun weekend.
If you hear us call us :-)
Trent
VK4TS
PO Box 275
Mooloolaba 4557
0408497550
________________________________
From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> on behalf of Gerry Hull
<gerry@yccc.org>
Sent: 10 May 2017 08:28
To: Yuri; CQ-Contest
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] What is Multi to you?
I have no problem with Dual CQ SO2R, Yuri. These are great advances in
technique and show excellent operator skill and innovation.
Time Division Multiplexing 8 operators and radios to a "single" radio,
IMHO, is not the same thing and is not in the spirit of the rules. It is
simply a technology technique which is within the letter of the rules, but
not the spirit.
Yes, I have to accept it if the rules may not change. I DO accept it...
However, I don't think it is a good way to encourage new M/S teams to
participate.
We all have our opinions, these are mine.
73, Gerry W1VE
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Yuri <ve3dz@rigexpert.net> wrote:
> Gerry,
> Isn't SO2R Dual CQ operation (a-la CT1BOH, N6MJ etc.) is the same type of
> <quote> "elimination of a lot of people from ever being in contention for
> top spots in the category" <unquote>?
> All that you said below is true for ANY category.
>
> I think it's all about the rules.
> If they aren't broken and they allow to do such, then... one either needs
> to change the rules or has to accept the fact. Maybe it's time to research
> some other ways to attract (more) new competitors, like doing more
> WRTC-style (live) competitions during June FDays, working more closely with
> schools, colleges and other youth organizations and so on...
>
> Best regards,
> Yuri VE3DZ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Gerry Hull
> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 10:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] What is Multi to you?
>
> Interesting Thread.
>
> I've been contesting over 40 years. In all that time, 99% of my efforts
> have been at M/S or M/2 stations.
> For more than 30 of those years, a multi-single was a station with one
> main radio and one multiplier radio.
>
> With a single tower and a good antenna complement, winning M/S in North
> America has been possible with two radios. We did it at more than one
> station.
>
> If you read my comments on CQ Contest, you know that I don't live in the
> past -- I love technology, and advancing the state of the art is where I'm
> at.
>
> However, in this case, I think the case of N radios in a M/S is a
> bastardization of M/S. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
> I applaud the Huge M/S multi-radio efforts by K1LZ and others -- very cool
> technology -- but all that does is eliminate a lot of people from ever
> being in contention for top spots in the category. If you look at the size
> of the scores in these 5-to-10 radio Multi-singles, they are completely out
> of line with "traditional" multi-singles.
>
> In CQWW, there used to be a category for "experimental" operations ...
> I'm sure those guys building those huge M/S operations would not accept
> being put in to such a category... However, how do we encourage new
> stations, and long-time "traditional" M/S stations to compete in the
> category?
> Since there are not a HUGE number of these Many-TX-interlocked M/S, and
> they love to one-up each other -- why not let them compete in a category of
> their own?
>
> There's lots of technology/technique happening in the M/S space without
> going to such extremes.
>
> 73,
>
> Gerry W1VE
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
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
|