With all respect to technical and operating skills developing our contesting
further, my opinion is that using two RUN-frequencies on one band
(interlocked transceivers assumed of course) is not a good development. I
fully agree with the new rules from the CQWW CC.
The behaviour demands double bandwidth per station on already overcrowded
bands during CQWW, this is NOT a sustainable development.
Contesting will then become a RUN-FEST for 100 Big Gun MS Stations occupying
all available bandwidth. The rest of stations, except for some equally Big
Gun SO stations, will be limited to 100 % Search and Pounce...
One must extend the imagination a little further and understand full
consequences of new technique and development.
No... I am not conservative by reflexes... I have operated many times in MS
efforts with two alternating RUN station. It is fun, it drives adrenaline
and it requires excellent and compatible operators - BUT it reduces
available space and amount of stations with 50% !!!
73 de RA/SM6LRR. Mats
2011/8/18 Juha Rantanen <email@example.com>
> CQWW CC has created a totally unnecessary rule change for multi-ops in
> 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 mailing list