CQWW CC has created a totally unnecessary rule change for multi-ops in CQWW: 12. When two or more transmitters are present on a band, either a software or hardware device MUST be used to prevent more
I agree with Juha. There are really two rule changes here: 1) Must have a transmit interlock when two (or more) radios on same band. Completely unenforceable. 2) No alternating CQ's on the same band.
Yes, CQWW already had such a rule. And since CQWW already had the rule, why should CQWW specify the method of compliance ? No it's not up to them. It must be hardware or software. Human lockout (usin
Unnecessary? Really? The rule is in place to assure that two signals cannot occur simultaneously on a band in compliance with the rules. Dueling CQ's is already forbidden in the rules for many reason
Looking at recent contest results, we have found that "completely unenforceable" is not true in the case of both CQWW and the RDXC for multiple signals per band. Violation of the one transmitter at a
That is imho a very reasonable rule. Consider a large M/M station with plenty of operators and multiple transceivers on a single band blocking many frequencies for others with their alternate cq. The
I can't speak for why the Contest Committee did it, but I see one very good reason to have done so: There is only so much spectrum available for us. In contests it is much less than we would like to
Juha and all, The rule intention is to prevent simultaneous CQ from one station. Main driver is available bandwidth. By this rule, for example 160SSB can be used in Europe. Without this rule, there c
Looks to me like they are defining alternate CQs as "soliciting contacts" Juha OH6XX I can see where it could become a bit messy if several multi-multi stations had 3-6 stations on the air, all soli
Juha, I think they introduced this new rule to avoid overcrowding bands with a lot of strong signals. Those who are capable of alternating CQ on the same band in fact occupy two frequencies. Usually
Hello Juha, With all respect to technical and operating skills developing our contesting further, my opinion is that using two RUN-frequencies on one band (interlocked transceivers assumed of course)
Thank you. 73, de Hans, K0HB _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
I'd like to see Multiops prohibited from the bottom 25 KHz of a band :.) Barry W2UP -- Barry Kutner, W2UP Lakewood, CO _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Conte
I think it is well known that the "hand signal method" does not PREVENT both radios from transmitting at the same time. The new rule requires a solution that PREVENTS the two radios from transmittin
As you may know, I am a great believer in "let them play" under only minimal rules, but I do not support the idea that a "super station" should be allowed to control two QRGs within a single band seg
I can't resist. I have not read all the discussion in detail, but there seems to be a near-consensus that dueling CQs is immoral if done on a single band, mainly because it uses up too much spectrum.
For all categories: 12. When two or more transmitters are present on a band, either a software or hardware device MUST be used to prevent more than one signal at any one time;interlocking two or more
Because much of the time only one band is really open and useful. Think 20 meters when the solar flux is at 70. Also because I don't think many SO guys can defend two run frequencies at one time. Two
I contest for fun. If I can win even better but I do it with integrity and it is not win at all costs. When the fun stops the radio on off button is depressed and it is on to another hobby. The cheat
Jim, Sounds reasonable. (I do think that eventually technology will move us to where SO can run two freq's (maybe a "skimmer" copying on each channel). Would it be immoral then? Or would we not care,