There's simply no reason not to require serious contenders for the top ten boxes to record their efforts. ** And having done so, we will then get excited about whether they will use those recordings
NO. You say there's "no reason not to require serious contesters" to record? NO. This crosses a line. This goes too far. This is not a matter of technology, it's a matter of trust. To try and catch a
Author: "Trent and Lorraine Sampson" <vk4ti@sampson.net.au>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:34:14 +1000
Our team effort as Multi Two YJ0AX in the WPX SSB 2008(which means we will have only two transmitters and possibly more than two operators located inside a 500 M circle - 250 M each way to the pool a
Being log checker for some local events, after publishing results and sending UBNs, I often get complains from some operators why I removed them some N-I-L contacts, with audio recordings attached. T
Nope, not much difference at all. That's why the top LP scores generally wouldn't even break into the top 10 HP scores. Steve, K0XP _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing
I really wish people would pay closer attention to the second part of my message, where I proposed monitoring of entire bands during contests, using cheap, currently available technology. But since w
Sorry, Pete, I'm going to have to take the other side on this one. I don't like the implications of requiring a recording with your entry. I'm certainly not against recording a contest, indeed it can
Pete, It's an interesting thought but color me a skeptic. I simply don't know that two or three receivers per continent would give enough coverage to be useful. There is a great difference in propaga
This assumes that the objective is to record every single QSO that takes place, which would be a little like having constant speed monitoring of every vehicle on every mile of the interstate. Maybe 9
A little food for thought... Audio clarity "Live" vs. Recorded. I've been Recording and streaming the audio "live" since it was possible (90s)........ We have available technology that allows audio l
I'm afraid it will be like "red light cameras" that are beginning to be popular in this area. They are obvious enough and there is enough discussion of their locations that the possibility is routin
Ø You say there's "no reason not to require serious contesters" to record? Ø Ø NO. This crosses a line. This goes too far. This is not a matter of Ø technology, it's a ma
"I'm not saying it will not work ... I am saying the effort is considerably more involved than 10 or 12 receivers scattered around the world. 73, ... Joe, W4TV" ... and then they strung wires to the
Ø Perhaps entry statements need something like the military academy "honor codes" that every entrant must sign. Once again, the underlying problem is that ?there is NO honor amongst thieves?,
Okay, I'll bite. Given propagation characteristics, tell us the number of stations that need to be set up. On 20 meters, with it's propagation, it seems that the answer is "a slew of them". I can't h
However, the "honor codes" state "I will not cheat, I will not assist those who cheat nor I will not tolerate those who do." Once one has subscribed to the honor code there is an affirmative duty to
Hi Jon and all - I just posted 10 minutes of video from the 2007 CQWW SSB PJ4E operation to YouTube. I was not able to patch directly to the camera for audio, but even with a headset dead over top of