Looking at recent contest results, we have found that "completely
unenforceable" is not true in the case of both CQWW and the RDXC for
multiple signals per band.
Violation of the one transmitter at a time rule is enforceable and has
resulted in numerous DQs in both of these contests.
The point here is that such a station, that can have a two-radio on a band
system should take the time and effort to interlock them properly to prevent
(this is the key word: PREVENT) having two signals on a band at a time.
I see no problem with that or the rule. How the station chooses to comply is
up to them.
One station soliciting contacts (i.e.; CQing) per band is all that is
allowed by rule. This is very clear to me.
Why would we want one station calling CQ on multiple frequencies interlocked
or not? The CQWW does not want this type of activity, hence the rule. I
think it's a good one.
One thing about these new rules is that they are specific and understanding
them is easy. Either you comply with them or you don't.
73,
Bob W5OV
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Steve London
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 8:21 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Multi-op rule change in CQWW
I agree with Juha.
There are really two rule changes here:
1) Must have a transmit interlock when two (or more) radios on same band.
Completely unenforceable.
2) No alternating CQ's on the same band.
But I can still have two run stations on the same band, as long as it
doesn't
sound like alternating CQ's and I have a transmit interlock ?
73,
Steve, N2IC
On 08/17/2011 11:23 PM, Juha Rantanen wrote:
> CQWW CC has created a totally unnecessary rule change for multi-ops in
CQWW:
>
> 12. When two or more transmitters are present on a band, either a
> software or hardware device MUST be used to prevent more than one
> signal at any one time;&xnbsp; interlocking two or more transmitters
> on a band with alternating CQs (soliciting contacts) is not allowed.
>
> Those who have the capabilities of creating such a station that allows
> alternate CQ's on the same band and the skills to use it efficiently
> should be allowed to do it. I wonder what is behind this rule again?
> We have seen past few days that the signal interlocking rule can be
> enforced is one wants to it as RDXC CC has done.
>
> Juha OH6XX
>
> "CQWW - Stone Age contesting!"
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|