thats the point: each contest should have their own complete set of rules.
Having to look at three sets of rules is problematic. In fact, I would be
willing to guess that some contesters are not even aware that the general
rules even exist.
73 Rich NN3W
On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 2:28 PM Zack Widup <w9sz.zack@gmail.com> wrote:
> How much operating have you done in VHF contests? Have you ever been in the
> 10 GHz and Up Contest? Some contests MUST have their own rules.
>
> 73, Zack W9SZ
>
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 10:51 AM Richard F DiDonna NN3W <
> richnn3w@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > May I make a suggestion since you are involved in the decision making
> > process at the League. In my opinion, its time to put an end to the ARRL
> > contest rules where you have THREE sets of rules governing a contest: the
> > particular contest rules, the "rules for all contests" and the rules for
> > contests above or below 30 MHz. Incorporate the rules into ONE document
> > for each contest. Working for a law firm in Washington DC, every time I
> > look at the ARRL DX rules or the Sweepstakes rules, I feel like I'm
> having
> > to read statute, regulations and legislative history - utterly confusing
> > and time consuming.
> >
> > 99.9% of contesters are digital capable now and the 0.01% isn't looking
> to
> > make the box. Very few trees are being killed if you added paragraphs or
> > combined the rules to create one concise document per contest.
> >
> > 73 Rich NN3W
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 7:44 AM Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Randy;
> > >
> > > "I must admit some surprise that a task like this would fall into the
> > > domain of a Director of the League."
> > >
> > > I'm on the ARRL Board's Programs and Services committee, (PSC), along
> > with
> > > four more Directors, and others. The rest of the remaining ten
> Directors
> > > are either on the Executive Committee, or the Administration and
> Finance
> > > Committee, both which deal more with actually running the ARRL and
> > > governance. Our purview is ARRL contests and events (such as Field
> Day),
> > > awards, the DXCC program, contests, and for now, the ARES program
> under a
> > > sub-committee.
> > >
> > > (If you read the Board minutes at all, you will see that I have been
> > > involved in many of the recent Board governance motions anyway. I've
> done
> > > that in "rogue Director" mode, not as part of a committee.)
> > >
> > > So, why am I involved here? I brought the "key click" issue (I noted it
> > > also during CQWW CW), before the PSC in a recent meeting after somebody
> > > here noted, then I confirmed, that the ARRL General Contest Rules on
> the
> > > subject were a lot more vague than those employed by CQ. I volunteered
> > for
> > > the tasking in this case in order to get this minor rules clarification
> > > done quickly, and on the books. HQ staff is still under COVID
> guidelines,
> > > and most of the building is empty. It was felt by the committee that
> this
> > > did not need to go to the CAC as a big and drawn out project. I'm
> > basically
> > > just spelling out in our rules what is already noted in FCC Part
> 97.307,
> > > paragraphs (a),(b),and (c). Those cover, in order, excessive bandwidth,
> > > splatter and keyclicks, and spurious emissions. (Without specific
> > > parameters, I might add.)
> > >
> > > People have two big criticisms about the ARRL. Number one is: "nobody
> > > listens to us". Well, I do, otherwise you wouldn't be hearing from me.
> > >
> > > Number two is: "you guys don't do anything". Well, at least I try.
> > >
> > > 73;
> > > Mike
> > > W7VO
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 11/13/2020 6:30 PM Randy Thompson <k5zd@outlook.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I must admit some surprise that a task like this would fall into the
> > > domain of a Director of the League. Are there not staff to handled
> such
> > > details? This seems like a perfect tasking for the underutilized
> Contest
> > > Advisory Committee.
> > > >
> > > > This is also a much more difficult topic to write rules around than
> it
> > > might seem. The CQ WW added rules about signal quality a few years
> ago.
> > > The following falls under section XII.A Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
> "Signals
> > > with excessive bandwidth (e.g., splatter, clicks) or harmonics on other
> > > bands."
> > > >
> > > > Several of the CQ WW Contest Committee members have spent time trying
> > to
> > > come up with a more formal definition of wide signals that could be
> used
> > > with audio recordings to make a solid case. I.e., something more than
> > > "knowing a bad signal when we see it." It has been a challenge. Jukka
> > > OH6LI did a write up on SSB signal quality at
> > > https://www.cqww.com/ssbsignalquality.htm
> > > >
> > > > It is probably best not to tie to specific rules or technologies.
> > > Bandwidth seems to be the best metric for determining signal quality.
> A
> > > signal is either within expected norms for the given mode or not. The
> > > challenge is how to measure that after the contest.
> > > >
> > > > 73,
> > > >
> > > > Randy K5ZD
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+k5zd=outlook.com@contesting.com
> >
> > > On Behalf Of Michael Ritz
> > > > Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 5:50 PM
> > > > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Key Clicks.... Continuing Problem
> > > >
> > > > Not that it means much, but I am in the process of updating the ARRL
> > > General Contest rules to include "clean signal" requirements, including
> > key
> > > clicks and splatter. Right now there is only a general "entrants are
> > bound
> > > by regulations of their national licensing authority" in the ARRL
> rules.
> > > That implies FCC Part 97.307 for US entrants, but what about everybody
> > else
> > > in the world?
> > > >
> > > > What I'm proposing to add "Each participant in an ARRL sponsored
> > contest
> > > shall take precautions to ensure that all signals emitted are free from
> > > excessive bandwidth, splatter, key clicks, or other spurious
> emissions".
> > > >
> > > > As far as adjudication, I'm adding under "Disqualification and
> > > Penalties": "Unsportsmanlike conduct will not be tolerated in ARRL
> > > contests. The ARRL reserves the right to take disciplinary action, up
> to
> > > and including disqualification, for entrants that violate this rule.
> This
> > > includes the emission of signals that do not meet applicable standards
> as
> > > specified...."
> > > >
> > > > Keep in mind that we (the ARRL) now have a pretty sophisticated
> > > Volunteer Monitor program in place, and they are looking for not only
> > > band-edge violators, but signal quality violations as well. Of course,
> > > still only for US entrants.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 73;
> > > > Mike
> > > > W7VO
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On 11/12/2020 1:50 PM Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Great post, Jim. Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > Based on what I learned doing that study several years ago of ARRL
> > Lab
> > > > > data, I completely agree. There are other things we can do as well.
> > > > > After I gave a preliminary version of that study to someone who I
> > > > > strongly suspected would pass it along to Yaesu, whose radios were
> > the
> > > > > worst offenders, a firmware upgrade for that series of radios was
> > > > > released that improved keying to the extent that it looked more
> like
> > > > > the second worst offender (of that generation), ICOM. :) If you
> have
> > > > > one of those rigs, by all means install the upgrade. I did before
> and
> > > > > after measurements of keying bandwidth on a neighbor's FTDX500.
> They
> > > are here.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://k9yc.com/P3_Spectrum_Measurements.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > The study of ARRL Lab data is here.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://k9yc.com/TXNoise.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, the slowest possible rise time should be used when it can be
> > > > > adjusted. The reason no adjustment is needed (or possible) with
> > > > > Elecraft rigs (beginning with the K3) is that the keying waveform
> is
> > > > > carefully shaped for maximum clarity and minimum clicks. Flex
> adopted
> > > > > this a year or so after ARRL Labs first tested the 6500 series. I
> > > > > don't know if they've tested those rigs for keying bandwidth after
> > > that upgrade.
> > > > >
> > > > > Another major generator of clicks (and splatter) is the use of ALC
> > > > > between the transceiver and the power amp to control power. In
> > > > > general, that form of ALC should ONLY be used to protect the amp
> from
> > > > > faults in the antenna system, including the operator transmitting
> > into
> > > > > the wrong antenna. :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't studied the current generation of Yaesu rigs on CW, but
> the
> > > > > lower cost models generate terrible splatter -- typically 2 kHz or
> > > > > more on both sides of their intended bandwidth, only 20 dB down.
> That
> > > > > is, 2 kHz on the suppressed side of the carrier, and 4-5 kHz on the
> > > > > other side of suppressed carrier. I discovered this when helping a
> > > > > neighbor figure out why his new Yaesu was splattering, also by
> > > > > observing it on other signals, alerting the splattering station,
> who
> > > > > told me what rig he was using.
> > > > >
> > > > > Obviously, if the transceiver is generating the splatter (or the
> > > > > clicks), the power amp will amplify it (and maybe add more of its
> > own).
> > > > > Think about it -- if someone with one of these rigs is 30dB over S9
> > in
> > > > > your receiver, his sidebands will be 10 dB over S9, not great if
> > > > > you're trying to work someone on an adjacent frequency.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, there were some very clicky signals this weekend. Thankfully
> > > > > fewer, as Elecraft and Flex rigs continue to proliferate.
> > > > >
> > > > > 73, Jim K9YC
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11/12/2020 9:23 AM, Jim McCook wrote:
> > > > > > Anyone who has been operating in CW contests is aware of the
> > rampant
> > > > > > key click problem we all must deal with.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you are using a JA made radio, please check the CW rise time
> to
> > > > > > be sure it's set to 8ms (unless 6ms is maximum... which needs to
> be
> > > > > > changed). Also check to be sure you're not hot switching your
> > > > > > amplifier. Key clicks in contests have become a serious problem
> > and
> > > > > > it's long overdue for resolution. If you use an older JA radio
> > > > > > without that adjustment, there may be a key click mod that will
> > > > > > eliminate those clicks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is a reported case of a radio set for 8ms being sent to the
> > > > > > manufacturer for repair and was returned with a 4ms setting.
> Please
> > > > > > check after such repair returns.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Elecraft and Flex users need not be concerned unless something is
> > > > > > wrong with the radio.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 73, Jim
> > > > > > W6YA
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> >
>
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon
> >
> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link
> >
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|