This year's and, from the description of the results, last year's WPX TS category reads "tribander/single element". When I looked at the 1998 results in "CQ Contest" the category was described as "tr
Yup, that's the category as it has always been defined. The 1998 results with "single wire" must have been a typographical error. See the official contest rules: <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep
As far as I know the rules have always stated this: That in the Tri-bander/Single/Wire element class you must only have the following: 1.) A single tri-bander with a single feedline for 10,15 and 20
The quad probably wouldn't qualify, since there's more than one feedline. I would suppose the "single feedline" requirement is to prevent someone from putting up an interlaced monobander and calling
According to Steve N8BJQ you don't even need the tribander. I *almost* won in 1998 CQ WPX SSB using a G5RV dipole (80-10) 35' (10M) high and a R7 vertical (used mostly on 15). Since I had *less* than
to big much antennas Correct, Mauri, The beauty of the TS category is that it allows those of us with "standard" antenna configurations to compete against each other. Not everyone of us can afford t
Even some "tri-banders" don't qualify. I belive Force-12 makes a tri-bander that has the capability of being fed with either one or three feedlines. In the one feedline configuration, it meets the r
From: Bill Coleman AA4LR <aa4lr@radio.org> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] When and why did rules change? ... << The quad probably wouldn't qualify, since there's more than one feedline. I would suppose th
Not all quads are multiple feed. Mine has a single feedline for 5 bands. Ron ND5S -- Original Message -- From: "Jon Ogden" <jono@enteract.com> To: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@dialup.mplik.ru>; <w4au@conte
I think we are reading too much into the rules and technical operations of the antennas. The rules are quite simple: 1.) The antenna on 10,15 and 20 meters must be either a tri-band sort of beam or
The key element in the "quad" example was that the "quad" in question had multiple feedlines, which essentially eliminated it from the WPX definition of a tribander. As someone else pointed out, ther
The tribander/single element category for WPX is a great idea. It had the best of intentions: giving the little guy without heaps of hardware a chance to compete against similar stations, rather than
Right! It's interesting to note that a Rhombic or V-Beam would be allowed, since they are single-element, but a OWA dipole would not. Which raises an interesting question -- is a multi-band dipole (i
Why not ? Because an OWA dipole is not in a single piece ? Then, also a tapered/trapped element or even a trapped dipole (count the wires between traps) would be not allowed. In my eyes, the fashion
But you just said that the rule doesn't consider the electrical characteristics of the antenna, only its physical characteristics. QED. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@radio.org Quote: "Boot
Ah, but there is a twist here. If my dipole works (which it does) on 80,40,30,17, and 12 meters, only ONE element is really active per band. When I operate on 40 meters, the 80 meter portion is trap
Tribander should be defined better than just single feedline. Force12 has their 49ft boom C49XR, and no way that any A3 can compare to that antenna. How are you guys, getting ready for penalties in W