I have been using the FT736R for 144, 222 and 432 work for a few years now. While a common complaint is that they are deaf, I must say that a large part of this is just that the front end gain is pr
If you want to make Mike bust up in a phone contest - do this: KH6ND: KH6ND contest K7RAT: K7RAT KH6ND: K7RAT blah-blah-blah K7RAT: Roger K5BND you are blah-blah-blah He has gotten used to this from
You have my sympathy Warren - it doesn't "feel" like the right thing to do. However, technically, since this is simplex operation, it isn't against the rules - and the point that a machine is doing
This hasn't been addressed by contest rules yet. I tried to force the discussion back in 1986 when I had the Z80 op make QSOs in the Field Day without any human interaction. Tree
I think it is safe to say there are those who think CU2QSO is a neat thing, and those who think that it is an attack on the spirit of contesting. There are probably even more people who aren't afflic
Well, yes - it could be taken to that extreme. However, I think the point I was trying to make was - that for many of us, the act of listening to the radio and decoding what information is there is m
Well, I think a distinction needs to be made between "the hobby" and "the contest". A contest is intended to be some kind of competition and most people who are in them seriously would like it to be
True enough, but there does need to be some controls on this so that everyone can have their fun (in a competition). In the case of packet spotting, if you decide that is fun, you are welcome to use
Perhaps this lively discussion of CU2QSO is about something a little bigger than just one issue. KE3HT has some interesting points, basically asking if CU2QSO is okay, why isn't ARPS with appropriate
Not sure I agree with this. In the June 2002 contest, I came in second in my division behind N7AU. He paid better attention to tracker rovers than I did, and as a result, had a better multiplier. Tha
I am not trying to control an aspect of CU2QSO. I am referring to rules that limit what you can and can't do during a contest and still be called a single-operator - unassisted. Actually, maybe that
I think there is a UHF contest this weekend? K7RAT will be active. Wonder if I have a chance to make more than a dozen QSOs? Am working on my 1296 system. My initial attempt on that band yielded 2 QS
What would the consensus be if a rover was found to have made 60 QSOs with only one station. Would that be a problem? Or maybe 36 QSOs? What if there were a number of cases like that with a single st
Ah - I remember that rule. I think perhaps I was on the CAC when it was adopted. It was a tough rule to write - how do you enforce it? The intent of the rule was to prevent such a thing from happeni
Well, let's say my premise is true - would that be over the line enough that it could be enforced? Or at least a letter written suggesting that it shouldn't be continued? Tree
Not necessarily. If you have all of the logs that were submitted, you can see if a rover station only appears in a single log. True, it is possible that the rover worked someone else you don't have
This is a forum that helps frame public opinion. We are not talking about what is legal or illegal. We are talking more about ethics and what is good for the sport of contesting. What does the VHF c
I am very sorry to hear that my comments have been taken as "anti roving". I honestly think rovers are fantastic and they should be commended for doing it. While I haven't yet roved in a VHF contest,