VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] Internet assistance

To: VHF Contesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Internet assistance
From: Marshall-K5QE <k5qe@k5qe.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:50:58 -0600
List-post: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com">mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Hello to everyone after the contest.....I have just gotten my "head above water" after the Jan VHF contest. I am still beat down, but I am trying to get some rest.

What Jay has so beautifully said below is exactly what I think that we need to be working towards. Whenever we get the chance, we need to recommend to our League officials that the VHF contest rules need to be very similar to what CQ has adopted. Maybe if they see that the CQ contest is MUCH better for its new rules, we can get some movement in the ARRL.

Jay's comments about the rovers is terribly important. The greatest complaint from the rovers that I hear is that they drive out to some horribly remote place, set up, and can't attract anyone's attention. They make a QSO or two(often NONE!!) and then have to move on. Rovers should be able to announce, "We are here!!! Come work us". There is no contact information in such a post and other stations still have to actually work the rover in order to get any contest points. Yes, such posts need to be limited, but some structure for such a post can surely be found.

I hope everyone did well in the contest.

73 Marshall K5QE

On 1/23/2013 12:07 PM, Keith Morehouse wrote:
I admit to having been (and still am in some respects) one of those 'HF
contesters" Marshall loves to abuse.  I also understand the push to keep a
"pure" single op category where it's man against man with no machine
assistance.  I think that is fine for HF contests and would not support any
attempt to allow machine assistance there.

I also do NOT support unlimited use of spotting nets or the ability to self
spot for single operators in VHF contests.  The key word in that last
sentence is UNLIMITED.  What I do support (and urge the ARRL to implement)
is the LIMITED ability to self spot when a single operator is engaged in
activities that are, by nature, not readily detectable and not subject to
normal terrestrial propagation.  Even then, I only support self spotting
that is a basic indicator of such activity.

CQ Magazines VHF contest in July has exactly the kind of rule I support.  A
limited ability to self spot when one is engaged in digital meteor scatter
or digital EME (i.e WSJT).  No QSO information is being exchanged and no
"conversation" is taking place that could invalidate the contact.  It is
simply a "Hello, I am on this frequency attempting to work stations using
very difficult and random methods.  Please listen for me."

I might also support this type of self spotting for Rover stations if the
actual format of such a spot was carefully defined, controlled and enforced.

Jay W9RM

Keith J Morehouse
Managing Partner
Calmesa Partners G.P.
Montrose, CO


On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:43 AM, John D'Ausilio <jdausilio@gmail.com>wrote:


Honestly I can't see any reason why everyone shouldn't be allowed to
self-spot in VHF and up tests .. we're looking to make weak signal
contacts over hard-to-predict paths with rapidly changing conditions,
why wouldn't we want to do everything we can to maximize the chance of
success?

_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting


_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting

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