Hear, hear. The first thing that came to my mind when Pete posted was... that despite the rules against its use during the contest by single ops, the RBN could have an effect on single-op operation.
So the ultimate purpose of the Reverse Beacon Network is... to replace the Cluster system? Never mind that it provides a new passive and difficult to detect tool for those who wish to cheat by using
Ok, This will be the last of me on this subject of contesting and having the internet be a requirement to participate. Remember i made reference to my section manager saying that he flelt it was un r
Good question. Other one: Do we need contesting? 73 Henk PA5KT Ron Notarius W3WN schreef: -- Henk Remijn PA5KT email: pa5kt@remijn.net www: www.remijn.net ____________________________________________
of spotting network assistance is not allowed I didnīt do a complete overview but at least more or less major contests like RDXC, WAG, All Asian, Oceania DX or WAEDC do not have unassisted categories
It has long disappointed me to see WAE, RDXC etc. endorsing the notion that since it is impossible to spot cheaters using cluster technology, let's just legalize the cheating by doing away with the d
Hey, this blog posting provides a *spot* on rule of thumb schedule for this thread: http://fi-ni-report.blogspot.com/2010/03/cq-contest-schedule.html 73 de ON5ZO http://www.on5zo.be/ ________________
There seems to be this general sense that if you've got a list of stations that have been spotted (skimmed), you just click and hit the fkey that sends your call and you're done. Even if I narrow spo
<snip> That was the argument used by Lehmann Brothers and others in the Banking and Finance world when they turned their backs on their core businesses - and started a revolution with new highly-soph
And like all private investors you have your choice to invest in the future or keep your cash in your mattress. If you don't want to partake in the 'new' cluster, other versions of which have been ar
EI5DI wrote: Regardless of how we got here, or how well-intentioned the developers were/are, we should not be here. K6STI and myself agreed in 1991 NOT to launch DSP CW contest robots giving diehard
Why did you decide so? Would it not have been a significant technological improvement taking us away from the straight key? 73, Chris (www.dl8mbs.de) _______________________________________________ C
I agree. If we keep ignoring the changing world, no longer, we gonna be only history! -- 73, Luc _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http
What drew me to amateur radio was the human factor. When that is gone then my station will QRT. True, 'advanced technology' will change amateur radio and it will never be the same again. It will draw
We were well aware of the robot impact on hamradio hobby! I am glad there is none even today. Mine made 200+ CW QSO in ARRL DX in 1991. Listening to it, I felt like physicist discovering atomic bomb.
To me it is so simple - just leave or add a true "unassisted" entry in contests. New tech is admirable.. but please leave a category for guys like me who want to compete with others of a like mind. T
But it will be only one more of those smaller and bigger steps in the development - applauded as keeping up with progress and maybe gaining new blood. Will it be two or three years that the first M/M
In the 19th century, mechanical propulsion largely replaced sail as the motive power for commercial and military ships. In the 20th century, internal combustion engines and the invention of the outbo
The problem is pete, that since in our contests all those different entry classes are running at the same time on the same lake people get confused and think they are a sailboat competing with a powe
I am ok with sail boat races and motor boat races happening at the same time as long as we know who are using motors... Randy, K5ZD _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing