[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: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:40:56 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

I don't see the point of this at all. What possible benefit is there for anyone ... even those who own 200 watt rigs ... to make this change??

From a competitive standpoint, those who own 100 watt rigs (a population much greater than those who own 200 watts rigs) would be at a significant disadvantage. 3db is a considerable difference in average signal strength.

It seems to me that this "modest" proposal would create all sorts of problems without solving any.

Dave   AB7E

On 10/10/2016 12:56 AM, Charles Harpole wrote:
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>