[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] modest proposal ...up to 200w

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] modest proposal ...up to 200w
From: Joe <nss@mwt.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:44:15 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Plus it is a LOT easier for those few with the 200 watters to cut back down to 100 watts, than it is for the 100 watters to go to 200 watts.

The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
On 10/10/2016 9:33 AM, Larry Gauthier (K8UT) wrote:

With many modern transceivers now offering a top wattage of 200 watts...
Looking at the category of transceivers that produce 200 watts, it is not the word 
"modern" that distinguishes them from other rigs, but the word "expensive." 
These are typically the upper-end of the manufacturers' product line and the manufacturers demand 
upper-end pricing. A huge segment of the contesting community - not just K3 owners - would be 
disadvantaged by your proposal.

I personally think the current 100 watt distinction provides a reasonable 
distinction between QRP and the full legal limit, and see no compelling reason 
to change that.

-larry (K8UT)
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Harpole
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 3:56 AM
To: CQ-Contest Reflector
Subject: [CQ-Contest] modest proposal ...up to 200w

With many modern transceivers now offering a top wattage of 200watts, how
about aligning the category of medium power to 200watts??

Ok, I guess K3 owners will become upset, but some feel that radio is so
superior, shouldn't they have to take a little handicap?

I told you my proposal is modest, but then I read Jonathan Swift.  73,

CQ-Contest mailing list

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