I think we should have separate categories for manned
and unmanned stations.
Seems like having a person in front of the rig is a
distinct disadvantage ;o)
73,
Julius
n2wn
Technology can be a convenience, such as: keyers
(remember when they were an issue versus bugs and
straight keys?), computer logging (what per centage of
the logs are sent in paper form, pretty small these
days. Do we have different categories for DOS and
Windows? Frankly, you can screw up a computer log as
easy, if not easier, as a paper log), antenna
switches, etc. These are just improvements in
technology.
I disagree about using a reflector to find spots.
That's like having 8000 other folks looking for needed
multipliers and letting me know exactly where to find
them. This is worth more than adding an operator.
Sorry, that's assisted in my mind.
SO2R, another story altogether, unless assisted by a
spotting network. I think you have to have a lot on
the ball to make this effective as a single op. I know
I can't compete against someone who is good at this
with a single radio.
As to building your own, some contests already have
had this (Stew Perry last year and some QRP contests).
Check out the latest QEX for a rather impressive
homebrew transceiver.
We'll NEVER have a category for all the possibilities
unless the number warrant it.
--- Hank Greeb <n8xx@arrl.org> wrote:
> I personally think that the distinction of Single
> Operator and Assisted
> is an anachronism of the 20th century, if not the
> 19th century. Why
> don't we have separate categories for folks who
> operate SO2R, or those
> who use computers for logging, and sending CW and
> Phone content? They
> are getting assistance from technology - hardly
> anyone would have
> thought to operate SO2R in the 50's when I got my
> license, and computer
> logging, sending, tracking of antennae, etc., are no
> different that
> using a spotting network.
>
> We should have categories for
>
> Operators who build their own equipment from
> scratch. This would
> include all the antenna hardware, including,
> perhaps, winding their own
> rotor motors, and fabricating their own towers, if
> needed.
>
> Operators who use superhet receivers - after all,
> superhets weren't in
> use when contesting first started.
>
> I could go on and on. But, my question is "why do
> we disallow some
> forms of technological advances in contesting, but
> allow many, many,
> many others?" Or, do we equate the help from a
> "person" to the help one
> gets from a stupid computer interfaced to the
> internet?
>
> 73 de n8xx Hg
>
> PAUL PIERCEY <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com> wrote:
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 19:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: PAUL PIERCEY <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Assistance & Entry
> Status
> > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Message-ID:
> <877554.82707.qm@web88107.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> > I disagree. If there is no provision in the rules
> governing the use of the cluster or "assistance" per
> se, then there would be no expectation that a single
> operator would enter as a multi-op as a matter of
> conscience. If the rules can't be followed then
> where does that leave us?
> >
> >
> > 73 -- Paul VO1HE
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|