Hello all In the CQ WW CW 2011 results, Bob K3EST says 'split operation in a major contest should not happen'. I absolutely agree if the big Single-ops or Multi-ops decide to go split just to increas
In my not so humble opinion, using two frequencies on the same band during a contest is inconsiderate at best. _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@conte
I was told many years ago, "everyday try and find a smile, try and find something to laugh about" Thanks Bob K3EST for making my day........ Sure enough, in last year's WW CW results write-up, Bob pe
Split operation in CW contest is a very useful tool. Every DX being covered by pile up should use split (of course in a sensible way). It should be encouraged to full extent. Complaining about using
Bob probably meant to get across the concept that one should not listen up 5 as expeditions do so. If the pileup is really getting out of hand, then up 1 should be enough as long as those calling do
Not during the more active contests over here. During the more active contests, there are often stations every few hundred Hz. Also, I am not sure most people tune dead zero beat anyway. Certainly m
<<<< Bob probably meant to get across the concept that one should not listen up 5 as expeditions do so. If the pileup is really getting out of hand, then up 1 should be enough as long as those callin
I'd add just a note on spots ... The real problem is people jumping on spots and all winding up on the same frequency, even if it is not zero-beat with the DX. It rarely will be anyway, and a little
Did this split operation cause a large number of people to lose contacts? I guess I don't understand the big concern. I don't think we were running out space. Maybe if everyone feels the need to be i
What is the difference in spectrum used if the pile is 500 Hz up, or 5000 Hz up? The spectrum used is dependent on the bandwidth of the signals and the spread around a second frequency, not how far
I'm lost on this one, guys. Why should a station (just because they're low power, or DX) be privileged above us "commoners" to a second QRG for clear reception? Good luck on this one now! 73, Hans, K
I've worked a lot of station in a DX contest that were operating ** in between ** the DX and his split pileup. Was there lots of confusion? You betcha, however Tom's point is valid. With a wider spli
OK .. hei there .. Engineers! Scientists ! Optimize ! Case: a multiplier with a pileup in CQWW SSB 2012 .. any band 160-10. My suggestion is to start thinking about a scenario the DX is buried under
In the CQ WW CW last year I was priviliged by a double mukt provided by a ZK2. When a pileup on a simplex freq turned into a mess, the operator decided to listen UP. It has helped not only himself, b
Hans, I am so surprised you don't understand. Imagine, you have a constant pile-up of about 20...++ stations. Among them, there are always few ones that don't listen and just call you because of the
Hi Hans. Problem is... An amateur radio contests, are a massive concentration of lids in a pretty short period of time. Though there are codes of conduct that apply. It remains one of the most cahoti
Hi Yuri Then, what you are saying is that it would be a a lot better if there was no DX Cluster. That way only stations that actually copy you would be calling, I sure can't see anything wrong with t
Clearly 4 and 5, on CW or other narrow modes, use exactly the same space on the band. He could be using up1, 2, 3, 4, or any number and the spectrum use is identical. 6 is obviously a problem consum
Martin: I enjoyed your LCF discussion. As one of the creators of the Sprints, I was pleased that you noted that one of our objectives as we designed the contest was indeed working. The QSO/QSY rule r
I have noticed during our past couple PJ4A CQWW CW operations the pileups have seemed to get so unruly that we sometimes had to listen split to keep up the rate. I remember last year one particular E