Dustin wrote:
> Kenneth E. Harker wrote:
>
>> But this particular argument began, not with a discussion of the passive use
>> of spotting networks on VHF, but Marshall's use of the term "assistance"
>> to refer to the active use of non-radio networks to make QSOs, something that
>> I hope the VUAC rejects for all participants in VHF radio contests.
>>
>>
> This is the wrong English. I think what you should have said is...
>
> "Marshall's use of the term "assistance"
> to refer to the active use of non-radio networks to make schedules"
>
> Maybe I'm wrong?
Exactly the point I was attempting to make. The way it is worded
implies you don't have to pass the information over the air.
My point is; even if the QSO is arranged by whatever means, ALL of the
exchange still has to be passed and copied on both ends over the air.
In my opinion, the contest is about completing the QSO, not about how
you located the station to work. Others have differing opinions, of
course. At this point, we will have to agree to disagree.
73
Dan
--
Amateur Radio Emergency Service, Clark County Indiana. EM78el
K9ZF /R no budget Rover ***QRP-l #1269 Check out the Rover Resource Page at:
<http://www.qsl.net/n9rla> List Administrator for: InHam+grid-loc+ham-books
Ask me how to join the Indiana Ham Mailing list!
W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> I agree with Ken's email.
>
> Why should there be any difference between a VHF and HF contests general
> rules?
There are fundamental differences between HF and VHF. As someone else
pointed out, one of the key differences is simple numbers of participants.
On HF, a decent station in a popular contest will likely be able to run
stations for the entire contest, and never run out of people to work.
On VHF, you will likely run out a band in a matter of hours, or even
minutes, depending on what part of the country you are in. I think this
is one of the key problems we have. For example, a small station will
get on the air, operate for an hour or two, get bored, and then shut off
the rig and go watch TV... Now the contest has lost a participant for
the rest of the test. And no amount of CQ'ing and searching can make
his rig turn back on...
> Using means other than the radio diminishes a contact in my eyes. While
> packet alerts you to a station being at a specific frequency he does not
> know who might be calling him.
>
> Making a contact when both sides know what is coming is much different
> than
> having to dig out a callsign out of the noise.
>
I respectfully disagree. You are assuming here that one or the other
stations will cheat. Just because I know a stations call and grid,
DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T HAVE TO COPY IT OVER THE AIR. [caps added for
emphasis only...] After a few years of contesting, the fact is I have
learned the call and grid of about 80% of the stations I work in every
contest. But I still have to copy their complete info over the air, or
it's not a valid QSO. And most of the operators I have worked on VHF
are very strict on this point. Particularly the MS ops. The other
thread about Tilton's rules illustrates this nicely. So please don't
assume someone is going to cheat.
In my opinion, being able to use "whatever means" to find stations could
help boost the numbers of active VHF contesters. I have to believe this
would be a benefit to contesting. Now, please don't assume I am going
to cheat. Just because I believe this would help, doesn't mean I will
not follow the rules as they are written.
I also supported the idea of adding APRS to Rovers, basically for the
same reasons. I hope to add it to my station someday.
73
Dan
--
Amateur Radio Emergency Service, Clark County Indiana. EM78el
K9ZF /R no budget Rover ***QRP-l #1269 Check out the Rover Resource Page
at:
<http://www.qsl.net/n9rla> List Administrator for: InHam+grid-loc+ham-books
Ask me how to join the Indiana Ham Mailing list!
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|