Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Preliminary\s+2010\s+CQ\s+WPX\s+SSB\/CW\s+Contest\s+Rules\s*$/: 33 ]

Total 33 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1)
Author: "Randy Thompson K5ZD" <k5zd@charter.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:55:25 -0800
The preliminary rules for the 2010 CQ WPX Contest are now available for review and comment. See the summary of changes on the CQ WPX blog: http://www.cqwpx.com/blog/?p=50 The major change is to the M
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00327.html (7,525 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1)
Author: Mikael Larsmark <mike@sm3wmv.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:26:28 +0100
Hello I think these new rules really, really destroy the M/S and M/2 category in WPX. Now you remove the fun of having a bunch of ops running the contest together. These new rules remove the point of
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00339.html (8,343 bytes)

3. [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1)
Author: "Larry - K7SV" <k7sv@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:56:28 -0500
Al Crespo (F5VHJ) and George Fremin III (K5TR) both make very valid points. I think the question is, how would the rule change affect the following considerations? 1. Would we gain or lose activity?
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00342.html (7,599 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1)
Author: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:14:50 -0700
IMHO, the proposed changes to the M/S rules make very little difference. I'm still going to use 2 radios, and keep 2 ops busy all the time, but have a lockout to prevent simultaneous transmissions. O
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00343.html (8,003 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1)
Author: Tom Haavisto <kamham69@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:10:30 -0500
Maybe there is another way to look at it. M/S with 6 radios is not really M/S, it a small multi-multi, and this class is better covered with M/2. If you have enough folks to really run two radios, wh
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00346.html (8,986 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:35:44 -0500
Transmitter lockouts. Great. Just great. What is wrong with the SIMPLE concept that a Multi/SINGLE station involves use of a SINGLE transmitter(transceiver)? What is wrong with the SIMPLE concept tha
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00348.html (9,594 bytes)

7. [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1)
Author: Stefano Brioschi <stefano.brioschi@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:49:00 +0100
Normally we cannot choose the rules for a contest but in this case, my feedback to Randy is to don't change WPX m/s rules. I think the use of the multiplier station is really cool and almost all the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00349.html (9,921 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1)
Author: "hank.k8dd" <hank.k8dd@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:44:19 -0500
I agree with Mike. M/S - the old CQ style - was fun, and took some thought and strategy. M/S - the new CQ style - well, it's turned it into an ARRL style M/S class with prefix's for a mult. Not as mu
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00350.html (9,955 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1)
Author: "Timo Klimoff" <timo.klimoff@dnainternet.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:26:35 +0200
Hej Mike! Have you ever worked WPX in M/S class? It is one of the most boring contests for multiplier station on Sunday because 95% of mults (of mult stn) have been worked on Saturday. New rule keep
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00352.html (8,874 bytes)

10. [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1)
Author: ha1ag@starjan.hu
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:48:39 +0100
Timo, do U really call 4 QSOs / hour "busy" ?? :-) I don't think what you call "Sunday boredom" is at any time less productive than 4 QSOs / hour... Mikey and KQ2R is right on this one. 73, Zoli HA1
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00361.html (8,823 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1)
Author: "i4ufh" <i4ufh@libero.it>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:49:59 +0100
Completly agree with Timo ! even there is no more difference from previous rules and the new one, u still need to have same HW and SW and same amount of operators, that instead of working mults at th
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00363.html (9,802 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1)
Author: David Pruett <k8cc@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:50:25 -0500
It's my opinion that the hue and cry over this change is much ado about nothing. My experience from every WPX contest I've been in for the past decade is that chasing prefix mults is unnecessary. The
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00366.html (11,334 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1)
Author: "Braco OE1EMS" <oe1ems@emssolutions.at>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:02:28 +0100
Hello, I agree 100% with Stefano. There is a lots of work in WPX contest with mult station even at the end of the contest. Also it needs a lot of strategy not only running and running and running. I
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00368.html (12,525 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1)
Author: Rick Tavan N6XI <rtavan@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:23:57 -0800
The M/S category should be IDENTICAL to Single Op Assisted except that multiple operators share the operating responsibility. Eliminating multiplier stations is an improvement but the new multi-singl
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00369.html (9,907 bytes)

15. [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1)
Author: "Jeffrey Clarke" <ku8e@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:14:29 -0500
I would like to make a comment on N6XI's comment about using an "octopus," and it being unethical.... I operated from a certain station when I lived in Ohio who had such a system. We won Multi-Op for
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00376.html (9,223 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1)
Author: "Timo Klimoff" <timo.klimoff@dnainternet.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:08:57 +0200
I don't understand how you get 4 qsos per hour only. You are going to work new multipliers only when you make a band change? 73, Timo OH1NOA _______________________________________________ CQ-Contes
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00379.html (9,206 bytes)

17. Re: [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1)
Author: Steve <ik4wmh@virgilio.it>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:36:58 +0000
Hello Timo, Yes, a few years ago. That's still less boring than hearing lots of mults on saturday and sunday and be unable to work *ANY* of them on the second radio. -- Famous Sport Quotes: "Don't lo
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00381.html (9,337 bytes)

18. Re: [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1)
Author: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:00:08 -0700
The answer to this question, and many other interesting questions, can be found at http://www.cqwpx.com/score_db.htm . This database is one of the many fine things that Randy has done for the WPX con
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00384.html (9,151 bytes)

19. Re: [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1)
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:52:05 -0800
If that's a concern, then the simple answer for your situation is to operate your station as M/2. If you look at the top WPX scores, you'll see that one out of every 4 QSOs on average is a new multip
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00385.html (10,453 bytes)

20. Re: [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules (score: 1)
Author: "Timo Klimoff" <timo.klimoff@dnainternet.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:17:32 +0200
Wow! This is cool! 73, Timo OH1NOA 9 WPX SSB contests 1996-2006, 14 WPX CW contests 1994-2008 _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http:/
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00387.html (10,517 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu