CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation

To: "Rudy Bakalov" <r_bakalov@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation
From: "Jeff AC0C" <keepwalking188@ac0c.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 22:27:18 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sorry to not explain clearly. So let me try again more explicitly this time.

Interleaving two QRG slots on the SAME band, even if it is allowed under the rules, is not something I am personally favoring given it's nearly impossible to find ONE clean QRG with the common practices with one guy per single frequency.

I just don't see the argument that operating split in a non-contesting time - where the bands are relatively uncrowded - is the same as the 2-QRG/1-band thing. Within contest events, guys generally don't do it even if it's not prohibited.

The exception to this is generally due to region 1 & 2 overlaps where bands are effectively widened by the use of large splits in DX contests to take advantage of a transmission privilege in one region that's prohibited in another. I don't see the conflict in that case because this sort of region difference-driven split allows for some relief of the crowing by the practice where conventional (split 5-20 up like a dxpedition would use) sort of operation definitely would make for more crowding.

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie

-----Original Message----- From: Rudy Bakalov
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 9:47 PM
To: Jeff AC0C
Cc: Radio K0HB ; Helmut Mueller ; cq-contest@contesting.com ; W0MU Mike Fatchett
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation

So convenience trumps principles? This is not surprising.

Split on 80 and 40, sometimes even on 20, is a common practice during SSB contests.

Rudy N2WQ

Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate autocorrect.


On Mar 15, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Jeff AC0C <keepwalking188@ac0c.com> wrote:

Sure you can. Split is not generally used in contesting specifically because of the dual spectrum use on one band.

There is some of that done by way of exception - especially on 40m - where the common international band allocations are tight to begin with as a way to expand the effective band. But otherwise split is definitely frowned on. Too bad; there are sometimes where a really rare DX guy shows up in a contest and his rate is near zero because of the massive pile up all on one frequency...

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie

-----Original Message----- From: Rudy Bakalov via CQ-Contest
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:45 PM
To: Radio K0HB
Cc: Helmut Mueller ; cq-contest@contesting.com ; W0MU Mike Fatchett
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation

The same argument can be made for working so split. Sounds like the two use cases of using extra spectrum are treated differently. You can't pick and chose and favor one vs the other.

Rudy N2WQ

Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate autocorrect.


On Mar 15, 2017, at 3:54 PM, Radio K0HB <kzerohb@gmail.com> wrote:

Helmut, I don't think that this resistance to interleaved-CQ is
"anti-innovation" at all, but resistance to "excess occupancy".

By any reasonable measure, running interleaved CQs on two QRG's in the same
band consumes two operating channels on that band. In the existing period
of limited propagation, many would consider such double-occupancy of a
finite resource to be selfish, not innovative.

Suppose for a moment, that I could "innovate" a method of interleaving 10
CQs on a single band. Would you applaud my innovation, or would you curse
my hoggery?


On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:07 Helmut Mueller <helmut@photo42.de> wrote:

Hi Guys.

These "new" techniques are just the evolution of contest, deal with it!

There are different contests out there who have different rules and smart people REALLY understand the rules and apply every effort that is allowed
by the rules! This is called contesting art or INOVATION!

You want to make all contests the same? Keep whining!

Centurys ago someone came up with stacked antennas: I bet there were
people moaning about this.
Centurys ago someone came up with computer logging and keying: I bet there
were people moaning about this.
Centurys ago someone came up with SO2R: People were moaning about this.
There are many more examples like this ... now we have SO2RUN or
Interleave QSOs!

I call this innovation! It is fantastic!

This is from the PJ2T website:

Dedicated to fun, international friendship, and advancement of the
contesting art through superior operating technique and maximum application
of technology

Could not say it any better!

73

Helmut DF7ZS

df7zs.de






-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] Im Auftrag von
W0MU Mike Fatchett
Gesendet: Wednesday, 15 March, 2017 04:50 AM
An: cq-contest@contesting.com
Betreff: Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs on Two or More
Frequencies in the Same Band

If you agree that the rules need to be changed,  you need to make your
ARRL Division Directors aware of your feelings.  I believe there is a
meeting coming up soon and I believe that this item can be taken up at that
time.

Alternating CQ's on different bands is pretty common on RTTY.  I think
that this practice should be allowed and monitored to make sure that
stations are adhering to the one transmitted signal at a time for Single
ops.

I can only image the situation where we have a wall of stations at
14.150 going up and 14.347 going down for alternating cq's. Add in EU and
the Caribbean and we have a big mess.

W0MU


On 3/14/2017 5:08 PM, Dick Green WC1M wrote:
I strongly support Frank's proposal, but the prohibition should apply to
Single Ops, too, as it does in CQ WW.

I realize that multi-op stations are more likely to be equipped to do
alternating CQs on the same band (A and B radios with two ops on each band,
multiple antennas per band with good isolation), but it certainly can be
done in an SO2R station. If only one band is open enough to run, then the
impact on the spectrum is the same.

Is there a compelling reason to allow Single Ops to do alternating CQs
on the same band?

Actually, I think a case could be made for banning alternating CQs
altogether. I'd regret that because I've sometimes used it as a Single Op
to boost rate or fight boredom, but it definitely does use up more
spectrum. If only two bands are open in a big contest, that spectrum is
likely to be very limited. What if a rare mult running low power can't find a place to CQ because the alternating CQers are taking up more than their
share of space? What about the impact on non-contesters?

73. Dick WC1M

-----Original Message-----
From: donovanf@starpower.net [mailto:donovanf@starpower.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 2:01 PM
To: CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs on Two or More
Frequencies in the Same Band


I recommend that alternating CQs on two or more frequencies on the same
band be prohibited immediately in all ARRL HF contests, exactly as it is
now prohibited in all CQ WW DX Contests and for multi-operators in the IARU
HF Championship.

The reason for my recommendation is that the recent success of the
PJ4G team in CQing on alternate frequencies on the same band (both on
20 and 15 meters) in the recent ARRL SSB DX Contest will inevitably be
applied -- very soon -- by other multi-operator competitors in future
ARRL contests. Unfortunately this will be to the very considerable
detriment of other HF spectrum users
-- both contesters and non-contesters -- because of the very limited
available spectrum on every HF band below 28 MHz.

The obvious course of action is to simply apply existing IARU HF
Championship rule 4.3.2.1 to all multi-operator categories in all ARRL HF
contests.

4.3.2.1. Alternating CQs on two or more frequencies on the same band is
not permitted.

http://www.arrl.org/iaru-hf-championship

A CAC sub-committee is currently engaged in a Rules Consolidation
Project to consolidate “The General Rules of all ARRL Contests”
“The General Rules for all ARRL contests Below 30 MHz” and individual
contest rules into a single rule set for each of the ARRL HF Contests.

In addition to the consolidation of the rules structure, the ARRL
Programs and Services Committee (PSC) asked the team to develop any
accompanying commentary they choose as to areas where the perceive that the
rules might benefit from revision and, where appropriate, to suggest
revised language.

http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/2016/J
uly/Doc_24_0716.pdf

While the CAC's role is solely to respond to projects and issues
assigned by the ARRL Programs and Services Committee; the CAC chairman can
recommend future CAC projects and issues to the PSC.

73
Frank
W3LPL


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

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

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

--
73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"Just a boy and his radio"™
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>