CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Contest Spots

Subject: [CQ-Contest] Contest Spots
From: k2wr@njdxa.org (Rich Gelber, K2WR)
Date: Fri Mar 15 10:08:04 2002
Yuri:

Who are you going to get to operate the Cluster nodes if they have to be
shut down during contests?  It takes a lot of time, money, effort,
dedication, and, often, a big tower, to operate a cluster node.  Many of
these are at stations which enter contests in multi-operator or
single-operator-assisted categories.  Why?  Because they built the nodes to
help them get spots sooner, and to enhance the capacity of the network by
adding nodes which accomodate more users without overloading the existing
nodes.

I've said this before and I'll say it again:  The DX Cluster network
primarily exists to provide spots during contests.  I'm not talking about
what most users use it for.  I'm talking about what the node builders built
the nodes for.  If the message from the contest community is that the
cluster system is not wanted during contests, then in a few years there
won't be a system at all, except over the internet.

I think that by having different categories that everyone can choose among
depending on their taste, we have approximated a level playing field as to
spotting assistance.  Yes, that doesn't eliminate "packet pilups" on
non-assisted DX stations, but I can think of a lot of things that are
different from 20-30 years ago, and most of them are for the better.  Packet
may be inconvenient for those who choose not to use it, but I can't think of
a better way to reduce overall activity than by eliminating it altogether.
(Unless we really want to discourage all the casual DX'ers who make a couple
hundred QSO's in each contest just by finding new band-countries on packet.)

Rich K2WR


>From Sylvan Katz <jskatz@sk.sympatico.ca>  Fri Mar 15 15:23:55 2002
From: Sylvan Katz <jskatz@sk.sympatico.ca> (Sylvan Katz)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Contest Spots
References: <001c01c1caa0$f7ed80c0$5f20fccd@jvpcb01>
 <20020314081828.EE81.WINDEV@inetmarket.com>
 <04d001c1cb64$0783c990$6400a8c0@selfsimilar>
 <005b01c1cbb0$9c6f3160$0201a8c0@yuri>
Message-ID: <012301c1cc35$6b95b1b0$6400a8c0@selfsimilar>

>I personally would REALLY support the idea to shut down all the DX clusters
>during major contests.

I don't think this is a viable solution especially given the fact that some
clusters are private. The only thing that makes sense is to "eliminate" the
assisted class. After all, as many other have pointed out, when we moved
from hand keys and bugs to keyers -especially those with a memory - we did
not create an assisted class. And when we moved from separate rx/tx to
transceivers and no longer had to zero beat we did not create an assisted
class. For reasons that are beyond my comprehension ( and maybe someone can
fill in some history) cluster spots are perceived as assisted and not simply
a technology change. I suspect, the origins of this idea are rooted in the
concept of the spotting station in the M/M class -- I suggest that it is not
the same. It is obvious that the notion of the assisted class has to be
revisited - BUT how do we convince the power that be to re-examine this
issue? Now there is the question :)

.. sylvan
Ô¿Ô¬
----------------
Sylvan Katz, VE5ZX
Saskatoon, SK
http://www.dynamicforesight.com/~ve5zx


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>