On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 12:29:24AM -0800, KL7RA wrote:
> >Considering that the OJs ran 100W to a rather low tribander, I have to
> >believe that it was difficult for a "SSB" team to compete. ///snip
>
> >-Mike N2MG
>
> You're probably right Mike, but during the last few hours of the test
> their SSB rates were around five a minute, 300 hour, or more and
> I was having some difficulty cracking their ssb piles. The usual
> thinking is to double the points for CW and the Finns decided not
> to do this.
Doubling the points for CW would be terrible. The WRTC stations
already make more CW QSOs than phone QSOs. Give them double points,
and they'd spend substantially less time on phone than they already do.
> My thinking is a super ssb op would have some advantage over the
> CW op simply because he could go faster, there are more ssb stations
> on and more mults. When the rate falls due 100 watts/ low antenna, you
> change bands.
The actual WRTC results haven't historically supported this hypothesis.
Even in 2000, when the scoring was specifically designed to make CW and
SSB QSOs equally important (by making one's CW or SSB score based upon
a percentage of the highest QSO total made on that mode) the WRTC
operators _still_ on average made more CW QSOs than phone QSOs.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth E. Harker "Vox Clamantis in Deserto" kharker@cs.utexas.edu
University of Texas at Austin Amateur Radio Callsign: WM5R
Department of the Computer Sciences VP, Central Texas DX & Contest Club
Taylor Hall TAY 2.124 Maintainer of Linux on Laptops
Austin, TX 78712-1188 USA http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/kharker/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From Peter Grillo, Sr." <ah3c@frii.com Wed Jul 17 23:55:52 2002
From: Peter Grillo, Sr." <ah3c@frii.com (Peter Grillo, Sr.)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Ideas for WRTC 2004
References: <200207171805.g6HI595r000770@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <001f01c22de5$1b471840$0100a8c0@oemcomputer>
YU7BW (OJ2Q) had 254 QSO's on 20 SSB 1st hour!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Gilmer, N2MG" <n2mg@eham.net>
To: "[Contest Reflector]" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Ideas for WRTC 2004
> Considering that the OJs ran 100W to a rather low tribander, I have to
> believe that it was difficult for a "SSB" team to compete. I only
> dabbled in the contest, but watching the spots and listening to the
> activity at my QTH, the OJ activity seemed far greater on CW than SSB.
> In fact, I worked all 52 OJ calls, 48 of them on 20CW, but only 6 or so
> on 20SSB.
>
> -Mike N2MG
>
> The following message was sent by "KL7RA" <kl7ra@blizzard.gcgo.nasa.gov>
on Wed, 17 Jul 2002 20:51:44 -0800.
>
> > -- CW and SSB count the same points and no additional multiplier for a
second
> > band mode QSO.
> > This rule prevents any advantage for a team with equal skills in
both modes.
> > A team that can do both modes well should be rewarded but this rule says
> > that a SSB team only can also compete. Is this what we want?
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
|