Re: [CQ-Contest] Chiming in -- SO2R

["Russell Hill" <rustyhill@earthlink.net>]

Joe, you could have a point there about 40 ft and PRB-1.  I just have not 
way of knowing.  Perhaps the lawyers among us have knowledge, or if the idea 
ever makes it to the CAC maybe the folks up at the League should comment on 
your point.  It certainly is one I had not considered.

Maybe whatever name the category might be called would help avoid misuse of 
the classification.  Maybe we should call it the "Poor Antenna" category.

Thanks, Rusty, na5tr


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
To: "'Russell Hill'" <rustyhill@earthlink.net>; "'Steve Root'" 
<steve.root@culligan4water.com>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 5:22 PM
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Chiming in -- SO2R


> Rusty writes,
>
> > My suggestion of a 50 ft dividing line is arbitrary and open
> > to discussion.
> >
> > But remembering my relative success with a 55 ft high 8-el
> > monobander in the last 10M contest I operated, I do believe
> > any dividing line higher than 50 ft would be too high, and
> > perhaps it should be 40 or 45 ft.
>
> ... and I, in view of all the PRB-1 history, would argue that
> establishing a line below 70 feet we risk giving all the cities
> that would like to restrict towers a perfect argument for an
> excessively low height.  Can anyone hear, "well the rules of
> XYZ competitive event define a class with tower heights no more
> than 40 feet.  If that is good enough for amateur competitions
> it must be high enough for 'effective communications' as envisioned
> by the federal government and thus their limited preemption only
> applies below 40 feet."
>
> 73,
>
>   ... Joe, K4IK


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest