S&P
Search and Pounce? Spot and Pounce?
he he he I'm the old way I tune the knob all the time.
Joe WB9SBD
*The Original Rolling Ball Clock
http://www.idle-tyme.com*
w1md@cfl.rr.com wrote:
> Hi Dennis...you better 'find' me this weekend...!!! :)
>
> BUT...if you are S&P'ing then you wouldn't get 'spotted' anyway...
>
> Of course there is more to flesh out before SELF SPOTTING becomes
> incorporated...but I think we're (thanks to Tree) onto something here... :)
>
> MD
>
> ---- Dennis McAlpine <dbmcalpine@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> But, what if one is an S&Per and changes frequency a lot? Then an update
>> every 30 min is not enough. If you are looking for that rare SC mult in SS
>> and you see me spotted 28 minutes ago, the chances are good that I am no
>> longer on that frequency. This means that rare SC mult may continue to
>> elude you.
>>
>> I make it a practice that if I come across a station calling CQ and it is
>> not on my band map, I spot him so that everyone will know where that station
>> is. That is a simple Alt-P on n1mm.
>>
>> The other option is to incorporate a built is skimmer into every radio and
>> then you don't need to worry about spots that you can't hear. Three cheers
>> for skimmer!!!
>>
>> 73,
>> Dennis, K2SX
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: w1md@cfl.rr.com [mailto:w1md@cfl.rr.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 9:53 AM
>> To: k1ep.list@gmail.com; Glenn Wyant; CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Ban all contest spotting?
>>
>> So...maybe this is a "good" argument for allowing self-spotting. Say, allow
>> each contestant in the contest the option to post their call/freq. every
>> 30min's . (no more reports of the 'most spotted calls'...since everyone who
>> is ON the network should have roughly the same number of spots over the
>> weekend...96...no more cheerleaders or self spotters...WE'd ALL be self
>> spotters)
>>
>> The good:
>>
>> 1. Ensures that the packet spot is correct...no busted calls
>> 2. GREATLY reduces network traffic (It amazes me sometimes to watch the raw
>> data feeds and see the multiple simultaneous spots of a station that go
>> through).
>> 3. Puts EVERYONE on the same playing field.
>> 4. With periodic spots, the packet pileups would fade away.
>> 5. No more having to hit ALT-F3 or whatever your logging program requires.
>> 6. Have the logging software implement the periodic updates automatically
>> and NOT allow any manual spots.
>>
>>
>> Seems like a 'win win'. :)
>>
>> Marty
>> W1MD
>> ---- Ed K1EP <k1ep.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At 11/2/2009 02:11 PM, Glenn Wyant wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Ban all contest spotting?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I propose that those who dont want clusters; that they dont use them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose that those who like using clusters ; use them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming they claim the proper category , IF they submit a contest
>>>>>
>> entry.
>>
>>>>> I am one of those low-life , cripples that uses the cluster (
>>>>>
>> assisted )
>>
>>>>> now and then , sorry to those who wish control my operating
>>>>>
>> preferences.
>>
>>>>> Glenn VA3DX
>>>>>
>>> For me, as a low power non-assisted contester, the use of packet in a
>>> contest is not merely an argument of whether it is a crutch or not,
>>> it affects the way I contest, even though I do not use it. Packet in
>>> a contest creates "packet pileups". Once a sought after station is
>>> spotted, a tremendous, sometimes unruly, pileup ensues. As an
>>> unassisted low power contester, I seek out the DX by tuning. When I
>>> find one, I would like the opportunity to work him without hundreds
>>> of packet people descending upon him. If, on the other hand, I am
>>> running and spotted incorrectly, I will all of a sudden have a flood
>>> of eager contesters calling me. Many will have already worked me and
>>> be dupes. This causes me to either QSY or work many dupes and reduce
>>> my effective rate. So, the use of packet it not an isolated event,
>>> it just doesn't help or assist the operator using it, it affects all
>>> the other contesters. Whether these effects are beneficial or not
>>> should be the discussion. If packet could be used by an assisted
>>> operator without affecting others, then I am all for it. In reality,
>>> that isn't the case.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.424 / Virus Database: 270.14.47/2478 - Release Date: 11/03/09
> 07:36:00
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|