I would dare say that there are many more 100W Radios than 150W radios being
manufactured these days. Also it's easier to dial a 150W radio back to 100W
than vice-versa.
The rule ought to realistically reflect the capability of the majority
population of radios available today.
73 --> Dave, W9PA (ex-W9ZRX, 1954 to 2012)
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Randy Thompson K5ZD
Sent: Tuesday, 16 September, 2014 7:39
To: 'Contest Reflector'
Subject: [CQ-Contest] History of Low Power Category
I was recently asked why the CQ Contests use 100W as the limit for low power
and the ARRL Contests use 150W. I had not really thought about this much
and wonder if anyone can explain how the limits were chosen.
The CQWW introduced a low power category in the writeup for the 1990 CQ WW
SSB Contest (and the rules for 1991). It is assumed that 100W was chosen
because it was easily accomplished by most barefoot transceivers or radios
of the time.
Can anyone explain the history of the ARRL selection of 150W? The slightly
higher power level can be reached by some radios, but it also encourages
"low power" stations to run an amplifier to gain that extra db between 100W
and 150W.
It would be nice if all contests used the same low power limit. Not because
one limit is more right than another, but so there would be less confusion.
Last year there was one entrant that entered CQWW as low power and then
realized they had exceeded 100W (I think they ran 110W or 120W). They asked
to have their entry reclassified to high power. Admirable integrity, but
unfortunately caused by the confusion between ARRL and CQ category limits.
Randy, K5ZD
_______________________________________________
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
|