Tr> Do you folks on the east coast really want to end the contest at
Tr> midnight on Sunday?
Tr> Tree N6TR
Tr> tree@cmicro.com
No Way, Jose! Besides, my wife will be torqued off by having to put the
kids to bed by herself regardless of which night I'm on.
73 de Bill, N6CQ/3
>From Victor Burns-KI6IM <vburns@netcom.com> Thu Sep 22 21:38:15 1994
From: Victor Burns-KI6IM <vburns@netcom.com> (Victor Burns-KI6IM)
Subject: 10-minute rule (AGN!)
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9409221333.A20319-0100000@netcom7>
> Hmmm...just been glancing through the rules in the September 94 CQ and, while
> not really wanting to start a flood of postings about the 10-minute rule
> again,
[Stuff Deleted]
> Quote: 3. Multi-op, single-transmitter.
> Only one transmitter and one band permitted during any 10-minute period.
> Exception, one - and only one - other band may be used during any 10-minute
> period if - and only if - the station worked is a new multiplier.
> Unquote.
> Ok, so I'm running on 20 for a couple of hours and decide to go and run on 15.
> I change bands and begin my run.
> But...for a 10 minute period around the band change I have been running on 20
> (say for 5 minutes) and running on 15 (for another 5 minutes).
> So I have been on two bands but NOT just to work a new multiplier.
Good point per the exact wording of the rules, but obviously interpreted
as you absolutely must stay on the new band for ten minutes UNLESS
EVERYONE you worked on the new band was also a new mult! And it does
say the same time period which means ANY 10 minutes sequence: maybe you
gotta work real slow...new mults only when you change bands during the
first ten minutes (Oh no! let us not start this again, please).
Don't get too singed.
vvb
---
> Question - how can you change bands to run and keep to rule 3? > > Not
>being finicky (well, maybe I am) but I don't see how I can change run
>bands >
> 73, Peter, G4BVH. >
>From Ronald Vincent <rev@efn.org> Thu Sep 22 22:00:35 1994
From: Ronald Vincent <rev@efn.org> (Ronald Vincent)
Subject: More scategorical imperatives(?)
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.90.940922130223.29830A-100000@efn.org>
As an recreational contester for quite a while, I seem to have gotten
more "involved" in the last few years, you know, sleep deprevation,
elevated adrenalin levels, the whole bit. THEN I discover Internet
reflectors, . . . Whoa, now here's some SERIOUS combatants of the
ether! I'll bet it gets really pumpin' mid-Oct. As I see it, if you are
dealing with a hobby which never looks back technologically, SOME rules
may need changing (adding?) and SOME will never change. The 1963 DX
Contests which I remember as a 13-year old probably were more similar
than dissimilar to today's TESTS. BUT, the day is here when someone can
turn on his radio(s)/computer/DVK/P/Keyer/AI software, walk away, come
back 48-hours later, check his printer, and find out "What score did I
have." If that day is not here now, it's not far away. Good, bad or
otherwise, people will react differently to this "technology." If we, as
rulemakers, want to maintain the level of human intervention which
currently exists, things must be dealt with concerning these
technoadvances and it's impact on HF contesting. I am sure that AM
contesters of the 40's/50's never thought that they'd be overrun by the
squaking sidebanders of the early 60's. My view on this is meant to
merely point out this trend, not say it's good OR bad, and it's impact on
current rule structure. I am sure that the ASSISTED category is a bit
all-encompassing as is. Using a computer vs. paper/pencil is an ASSIST
in the stamina department. Using a scanning xcvr with AI software is
Buck Rogers category . . .I don't think so for long.
Some thoughtful(?) rules changes for CQWW:
>For the Single Op ASSISTED category designate power levels like REGULAR
Single Op. (yes, I KNOW that means ANOTHER asterisk!) It would make
urban low power/QRPp ops. connected to packet feel more welcome in the
fray, instead of running a KW and creating neighborhood RFI.
>Create a YL Single Op class (I know, we're in the GENDERCLASS EQUALITY
mode in modern times) based on Single Op categories. This would
encourage YL's to compete in HF contesting for awards and trophies.
Perhaps make QSOs with DX YL's count 4pts.
>Conduct "technosurvey" of participants. Compile a list of devices used
by each one, e.g. computer/radio-control software/DVK, etc., to see what
PERCENTAGE of total entries use these means during contest. Review rules
to see what, if anything, may enhance participation in light of this data.
>Entertain the possibility of a "CQWW Technocontest" which encourages the
use of high technologies in HF/WIRELESS contesting. Oh, God, I can feel
the flamethrowers being lit now . . . .
73 de Ron WJ7R/ZF2RV/ZF8
rev@efn.org.
|