RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] contest change

To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change
From: Robert Chudek - K0RC <k0rc@citlink.net>
Reply-to: k0rc@citlink.net
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 18:57:11 -0500
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
Sorry but the "no more than two blocks" is stated in the OLD rule, not the proposed NEW rule.

The NEW rule says the operating time will be calculated by subtracting the TWO longest blocks of time from the total operating period. If I run 12 hours, take a 6 hour break, and run the final 12 hours, that is only ONE longest block of time. The log checking software will not find two separate blocks of off time in that scenario, which is what I was questioning.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 7/5/2013 10:37 AM, Al Kozakiewicz wrote:
Living proof of the misunderstanding!

The rule is NO MORE THAN two blocks.  Your interpretation after having stated 
the rule correctly is that a single 6 hour break is not consistent with the 
rule - it is.  One block IS no more than two blocks!
The point of the rule is to prevent operating the entire period and meeting the 
downtime requirement by stringing together a large number of slow periods to 
add up to six hours.

Al
AB2ZY

-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert Chudek - 
K0RC
Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2013 9:40 PM
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change

This is the first time I have read the CAC recommendation regarding the ARRL RTTY RU 
contest. The key area that needed attention in my opinion was making the "Two 
off-periods" requirement understandable. Each year there is a reflector debate about 
the meaning of the rule. The original wording was this:

*2.2. The six hours of off time must be taken in no more than two blocks.*

The new wording recommended by the CAC is this:

*2.2 Operating Time will be calculated using the elapsed time between the first 
QSO and the last QSO logged minus the longest two breaks during this elapsed 
time where such breaks are a minimum of 30 minutes
each.*

This new wording appears to eliminate one practice used by some operators. In 
the past it has been acceptable to take two 3-hour breaks, back to back with no 
intervening QSOs.

The way I read it, the new recommended wording eliminates that possibility. For example, 
if I work the first 12 hours and then take a 6-hour break, then work another 12 hours, I 
have met the maximum 24-hour operating requirement, but I fail the "longest two 
breaks of 30 minutes minimum each" requirement.

It appears I would need to make one QSO between my back-to-back 3-hour blocks 
of off-times to satisfy the 2-block requirement.

What do you guys think?

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 7/4/2013 7:47 PM, KC4HW/Jim wrote:
On 4 Jul 2013 at 17:00, Dick Wilson wrote:

Your proposal looks a little like info in the Contest Advisory
Committee report dated Jan. 2013.
It appears these changes were discussed and some dismissed w/o
action.
Suggest reading.

73,

Dick

Hey Dick, thanks for the information.

I did read the report, it seems that the CAC did consider the
"UNLIMITED" issue.  It was unclear whether those changes will be made
in the rules.  Guess we will just have to wait until the rules for
each of the contests are published or revised before the next event.

For everyone else, I really did not know that this information was on
line.  Guess I should have--shame on me!  Here is a link to the CAC
reports on this issues/changes, if you are interested...

http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/20
13/January/Doc_28-%20CAC.pdf

Also at the end of that report is the complete list of the CAC
representatives.   So you will know who your contest representative is
in case you have some items that you would like considered.

Jim/KC4HW


_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty


_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>