At 12:26 AM 2/26/00 -0600, W9WI wrote:
>
>WRT Fred's comments.. I would argue that in some circumstances, I need
>more clear spectrum to compete on an even level. Because the desired
>signals (at least of the weaker stations) are, in those circumstances,
>considerably louder at his QTH than at mine. I suppose that brings up
>the age old "do we really want to equalize the East Coast and everyone
>else?" question. Providing a reasonable state-of-the-art hole (I would
>suggest 200Hz on CW) for everyone eliminates the question. If two W3s
>want to try to run 50Hz apart, that's OK by me.
My personal experience is that those who QSY'ed to say "QRL" to me have
come from a far greater distance away than 200 Hz, so in principle I would
not disagree with Doug's use of this figure. But I hesitate to state an
absolute figure because then it tends to get set in concrete and people
accuse you of violating a "Gentlemen's agreement".
>I suppose we could reimpose the quotas that existed in the ARRL DX back
>in the ??'s. (they were eliminated before my time) One could then look
>forward to an awful lot of ties<g>.
And a lot of people would fall asleep... I operated a number of years that
the quota was in place. Actually what it would do is result in a lot more
multiplier passing to other bands, which I personally don't enjoy doing,
and a lot more S&P, which I love, so I guess it would be a wash for me.
But it did give me, operating W9EWC's station in the "black hole", a chance
to break the "top ten" at a tender age.
>Finally, I have to ask... If it's OK to run a contester off their
>occupied frequency, is it OK to run off a *non-contester*, someone in an
>established QSO or net? Are we sure we want to risk the establishment
>of contest-free zones by condoning this?
I have been at two IARU Conferences where CFZ's were proposed, and at both
they were soundly rejected by the majority of national radio societies in
attendance. In my opinion the ARRL's CFZ for the 10 meter contest would
never have seen the light of day had it been publicized prior to being
adopted, but the measure was instituted quietly by the Membership Services
Committee of the ARRL Board with the connivance of the then-Chairman of the
CAC, who did not bother to inform the rest of the CAC what was going on.
He is now an ARRL Vice-Director.
73, Fred
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|