I have not a M/S station with 2 transmitters, etc. My club usually run with
one rig and until recently without amplifier. Is this a reason to reduce the
M/S category to Low power stations with one antenna? I have study many
books, many internet sites, to be able to build a M/S station for our club.
I was needed to understand what is bandpass filters, stubs, etc. Even we had
a disadvantage with the rules as used to be, i believe that the old way will
help us to be better hams.
Just my opinion
73 Kostas SV1DPI
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike N0HI" <mike@n0hi.net>
To: <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] the "new" M/S for WPX
> No, I don't see this changing participation -- and that is good. You are
> correct, a m/m or m/2 station can still knock down and interlock for a
> m/s. I'm sure they will. I also believe at least a few big-time m/s will
> move up to m/2. In fact, I can guarantee it.
>
> And I would like to see where in that snip I mentioned casual and serious
> guys. I mentioned:
>
> a. The op who cannot afford or doesn't have the space for a second tx,
> filters, antennas, etc. (I'm sure a lot of these guys are present)
> b. The local "community" multi-op trying to set the hook(K1TTT explained
> his situation on this list a few weeks ago in m/m, but there are many more
> in m/s)
> c. M/s guys sick of getting beat by guys who do have the second tx (this
> is probably the first category, too)
>
> In the past, maybe you are correct; maybe not having the second tx and
> entering m/s put a, b, and/or c in the "casual" category, even if our ops
> were very serious in the operation. My point in all of this, Doug, is
> that now they are a little closer to the serious guys. Taking away that
> extra transmitter, even if it means interlocking a few of them, makes the
> situation a whole lot more competitive for the "garage multi-ops." I'm
> sure the big interlocked stations will still rule the upper-end, but at
> the end of the day, the scores are going to be a little closer.
>
> Again, you're correct. I'm only talking about making things more
> competitive for the guys you just labelled as "casual" who are sure real
> serious about being "casual."
>
> --
> Mike DeChristopher, N0HI
> http://www.n0hi.net
> telnet://cluster.n0hi.net
>
>
>
>
>> N0HI said:
>> [snip]
>> It is also a wonderful category for people who cannot afford or do not
>> have the space for a second transmitter, filters, antennas, and other
>> associated hardware. It is also a wonderful category for people who want
>> to host a few local operators and "set the contesting hook." It is also
>> a
>> wonderful category for anyone sick of entering m/s and getting knocked
>> out
>> by guys running stepped down m/2 or m/m stations with [at least] one
>> fully-functioning second position.
>> [end snip]
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> In your comments (above), you are talking about two completely different
>> activities
>> here: (a) casual guys and (b) serious guys.
>>
>> For the former (what I'll call "casual") these guys could have always
>> done
>> this...even under
>> the still current WPX M/S rules. Nothing will change. You can "set the
>> hook" in any
>> (multi) category.
>>
>> For the latter (what I call "serious"), now you are "gripping" about not
>> be able to compete;
>> that is an entirely different story. Not having the wherewithall to
>> launch a competitive
>> station should (IMHO) have nothing to do with a category definition.
>>
>> If you think that forcing a M/S to have only one signal on the air at any
>> given time is going
>> to somehow prevent a current "high end" M/S from simply interlocking
>> their
>> (multiple) radios
>> so there really is only one signal on the air at a time, well, all I can
>> say is that I do not
>> think that view represents reality. Battling the interlock (octopus) is
>> actually a lot of fun,
>> even though it can also cause of a lot of internal strife at the station.
>> :-)
>>
>> Under the proposed WPX M/S rule, I still see no legal barrier to setting
>> up (as some say) a
>> full M/M and simply interlocking all of the rigs so that there is just
>> "one signal at a time."
>> Doing the same for a current M/2 station to now be M/S capable is even
>> easier.
>> Working with a partner or two and getting the "rhythm" down can be a
>> thing
>> of beauty and
>> a great source of pride. It sure builds camaraderie.
>>
>> If the WPX rule doesn't change, nobody is going to drop out. If the WPX
>> M/S rule does
>> change, there may be some (minor?) category migration. In the end, I
>> predict that none
>> of this will matter in terms of participation.
>>
>> de Doug KR2Q
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|