Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+ARRL\s+FD\s+Rule\s+4\s+Opinion\?\.\.\.\s*$/: 17 ]

Total 17 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] ARRL FD Rule 4 Opinion?... (score: 1)
Author: Gerry Hull <gerry@yccc.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 13:19:50 -0400
There was already a discussion about the new addition to rule 4: "The use of switching systems that allow for lockouts in order to use multiple transmitters (i.e., an octopus) in an attempt to enter
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-06/msg00066.html (7,320 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL FD Rule 4 Opinion?... (score: 1)
Author: "Peter Chamalian" <w1rm@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 05:50:37 -0400
Back in the day when it was my privilege to serve on the CAC, we wrote the rule to definitively kill the octopus and any sort of time sharing. In those days, using two rigs on one band was not in the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-06/msg00072.html (8,973 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL FD Rule 4 Opinion?... (score: 1)
Author: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 06:15:14 -0600
On 06/05/2013 11:19 AM, Gerry Hull wrote: There was already a discussion about the new addition to rule 4: "The use of switching systems that allow for lockouts in order to use multiple transmitters
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-06/msg00073.html (8,100 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL FD Rule 4 Opinion?... (score: 1)
Author: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 06:39:51 -0600
There is currently no rule for band changing. Thanks to the internet wayback machine, here is the history: 2004 - 15 minute rule on band changes. 2005-2012 - No rule on band changes. Replaced by the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-06/msg00074.html (9,209 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL FD Rule 4 Opinion?... (score: 1)
Author: Gerry Hull <gerry@yccc.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 09:22:25 -0400
I'm part of a 4A, I'm one band. I would not intend to EVER transmit on another band. I would not intend to transmit two signals on the same band -- in fact, with the arrangement, it's impossible. Thi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-06/msg00076.html (9,917 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL FD Rule 4 Opinion?... (score: 1)
Author: RT Clay <rt_clay@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 09:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
Yes, it is illegal under the new rules. You have 5 operators and radios but are using a lockout so that only 4 transmit at once so you can claim 4A. If you want to do that you should enter as 5A. To
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-06/msg00077.html (8,642 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL FD Rule 4 Opinion?... (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 09:56:10 -0600
Wouldn't have been easier just to say that if you transmit signals with 4 rigs you are 4 (X) if you transmit with 2 rigs then you are 2(x). In Gerry's situation if he wanted to show off the ability t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-06/msg00078.html (11,327 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL FD Rule 4 Opinion?... (score: 1)
Author: w5ov@w5ov.com
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:31:23 -0500
Go ahead and do it, and enter as 5A as Tor suggests. Who cares whether you're 4A or 5A ? de W5OV _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-06/msg00079.html (9,577 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL FD Rule 4 Opinion?... (score: 1)
Author: Gerry Hull <gerry@yccc.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 12:43:00 -0400
Right, Mike. My point is to demo a technique, not to try and cheat/win a category. (That would be very hard, as many of the club's folks are casual ops). Switching to 5A not possible -- club does not
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-06/msg00080.html (14,328 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL FD Rule 4 Opinion?... (score: 1)
Author: RT Clay <rt_clay@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 10:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
If you just want to do a demo then take one of the other band transmitters off the air during the duration of your demonstration. Then 4A is no problem. Tor N4OGW ___________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-06/msg00081.html (9,079 bytes)

11. [CQ-Contest] ARRL FD Rule 4 Opinion?... (score: 1)
Author: "Edward Sawyer" <SawyerEd@Earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 13:16:00 -0400
Gerry, Just call it a 5A and be done with it. Then you can still demonstrate and you are not trying to "intentionally claim fewer transmitters". After all.its not a contest. What does it matter? Ed N
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-06/msg00082.html (6,642 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL FD Rule 4 Opinion?... (score: 1)
Author: Gerry Hull <gerry@yccc.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 14:26:45 -0400
Agreed, Ed. In the end, It doesn't matter one hill of beans.. I'll ask the FD chairman -- but I'm simply a band captain trying to figure out what I want to do. The club has been 4A for years -- they
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-06/msg00083.html (8,119 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL FD Rule 4 Opinion?... (score: 1)
Author: W0MU <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 14:18:17 -0600
Fun and contesting....do those terms still mix? :) I'll ask the FD chairman -- but I'm simply a band captain trying to figure out what I want to do. The club has been 4A for years -- they probably do
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-06/msg00085.html (8,703 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL FD Rule 4 Opinion?... (score: 1)
Author: "Radio K0HB" <kzerohb@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:25:57 -0500
See the rules...... XXII. Misc. A. Everything not specifically allowed in these rules is prohibited. Contesting is now serious business, with inspectors, pre-nuptial declarations, and double penaltie
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-06/msg00086.html (10,418 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL FD Rule 4 Opinion?... (score: 1)
Author: Barry <w2up@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:19:24 -0600
Since when is FD a contest? Barry W2UP I'll ask the FD chairman -- but I'm simply a band captain trying to figure out what I want to do. The club has been 4A for years -- they probably don't want to
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-06/msg00088.html (9,982 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL FD Rule 4 Opinion?... (score: 1)
Author: "N2TK, Tony" <tony.kaz@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 18:25:32 -0400
I sure hope so, or I have been doing it wrong :-) N2TK, Tony Fun and contesting....do those terms still mix? :) _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@cont
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-06/msg00089.html (9,952 bytes)

17. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL FD Rule 4 Opinion?... (score: 1)
Author: "K5WA" <K5WA@Comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:37:21 -0500
If it doesn't matter, why in the world would the rule be put in place? Somebody went to a lot of effort to insert the rule without CAC review and then refine the rule further this year. It appears to
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-06/msg00099.html (9,463 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu