I agree that SO-Split is equally hoggish if it consumes two QRG's in a
single band segment.
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 17:45 Rudy Bakalov <r_bakalov@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The same argument can be made for working so split. Sounds like the two
> use cases of using extra spectrum are treated differently. You can't pick
> and chose and favor one vs the other.
>
> Rudy N2WQ
>
> Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevity, typos, or
> inappropriate autocorrect.
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 2017, at 3:54 PM, Radio K0HB <kzerohb@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Helmut, I don't think that this resistance to interleaved-CQ is
> > "anti-innovation" at all, but resistance to "excess occupancy".
> >
> > By any reasonable measure, running interleaved CQs on two QRG's in the
> same
> > band consumes two operating channels on that band. In the existing period
> > of limited propagation, many would consider such double-occupancy of a
> > finite resource to be selfish, not innovative.
> >
> > Suppose for a moment, that I could "innovate" a method of interleaving 10
> > CQs on a single band. Would you applaud my innovation, or would you curse
> > my hoggery?
> >
> >
> >> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:07 Helmut Mueller <helmut@photo42.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Guys.
> >>
> >> These "new" techniques are just the evolution of contest, deal with it!
> >>
> >> There are different contests out there who have different rules and
> smart
> >> people REALLY understand the rules and apply every effort that is
> allowed
> >> by the rules! This is called contesting art or INOVATION!
> >>
> >> You want to make all contests the same? Keep whining!
> >>
> >> Centurys ago someone came up with stacked antennas: I bet there were
> >> people moaning about this.
> >> Centurys ago someone came up with computer logging and keying: I bet
> there
> >> were people moaning about this.
> >> Centurys ago someone came up with SO2R: People were moaning about this.
> >> There are many more examples like this ... now we have SO2RUN or
> >> Interleave QSOs!
> >>
> >> I call this innovation! It is fantastic!
> >>
> >> This is from the PJ2T website:
> >>
> >> Dedicated to fun, international friendship, and advancement of the
> >> contesting art through superior operating technique and maximum
> application
> >> of technology
> >>
> >> Could not say it any better!
> >>
> >> 73
> >>
> >> Helmut DF7ZS
> >>
> >> df7zs.de
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] Im Auftrag
> von
> >> W0MU Mike Fatchett
> >> Gesendet: Wednesday, 15 March, 2017 04:50 AM
> >> An: cq-contest@contesting.com
> >> Betreff: Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs on Two or More
> >> Frequencies in the Same Band
> >>
> >> If you agree that the rules need to be changed, you need to make your
> >> ARRL Division Directors aware of your feelings. I believe there is a
> >> meeting coming up soon and I believe that this item can be taken up at
> that
> >> time.
> >>
> >> Alternating CQ's on different bands is pretty common on RTTY. I think
> >> that this practice should be allowed and monitored to make sure that
> >> stations are adhering to the one transmitted signal at a time for Single
> >> ops.
> >>
> >> I can only image the situation where we have a wall of stations at
> >> 14.150 going up and 14.347 going down for alternating cq's. Add in EU
> and
> >> the Caribbean and we have a big mess.
> >>
> >> W0MU
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 3/14/2017 5:08 PM, Dick Green WC1M wrote:
> >>> I strongly support Frank's proposal, but the prohibition should apply
> to
> >> Single Ops, too, as it does in CQ WW.
> >>>
> >>> I realize that multi-op stations are more likely to be equipped to do
> >> alternating CQs on the same band (A and B radios with two ops on each
> band,
> >> multiple antennas per band with good isolation), but it certainly can be
> >> done in an SO2R station. If only one band is open enough to run, then
> the
> >> impact on the spectrum is the same.
> >>>
> >>> Is there a compelling reason to allow Single Ops to do alternating CQs
> >> on the same band?
> >>>
> >>> Actually, I think a case could be made for banning alternating CQs
> >> altogether. I'd regret that because I've sometimes used it as a Single
> Op
> >> to boost rate or fight boredom, but it definitely does use up more
> >> spectrum. If only two bands are open in a big contest, that spectrum is
> >> likely to be very limited. What if a rare mult running low power can't
> find
> >> a place to CQ because the alternating CQers are taking up more than
> their
> >> share of space? What about the impact on non-contesters?
> >>>
> >>> 73. Dick WC1M
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: donovanf@starpower.net [mailto:donovanf@starpower.net]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 2:01 PM
> >>> To: CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> >>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs on Two or More
> >>> Frequencies in the Same Band
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I recommend that alternating CQs on two or more frequencies on the same
> >> band be prohibited immediately in all ARRL HF contests, exactly as it is
> >> now prohibited in all CQ WW DX Contests and for multi-operators in the
> IARU
> >> HF Championship.
> >>>
> >>> The reason for my recommendation is that the recent success of the
> >>> PJ4G team in CQing on alternate frequencies on the same band (both on
> >>> 20 and 15 meters) in the recent ARRL SSB DX Contest will inevitably be
> >>> applied -- very soon -- by other multi-operator competitors in future
> >>> ARRL contests. Unfortunately this will be to the very considerable
> >>> detriment of other HF spectrum users
> >>> -- both contesters and non-contesters -- because of the very limited
> >> available spectrum on every HF band below 28 MHz.
> >>>
> >>> The obvious course of action is to simply apply existing IARU HF
> >> Championship rule 4.3.2.1 to all multi-operator categories in all ARRL
> HF
> >> contests.
> >>>
> >>> 4.3.2.1. Alternating CQs on two or more frequencies on the same band is
> >> not permitted.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.arrl.org/iaru-hf-championship
> >>>
> >>> A CAC sub-committee is currently engaged in a Rules Consolidation
> >> Project to consolidate “The General Rules of all ARRL Contests”
> >>> “The General Rules for all ARRL contests Below 30 MHz” and individual
> >> contest rules into a single rule set for each of the ARRL HF Contests.
> >>>
> >>> In addition to the consolidation of the rules structure, the ARRL
> >> Programs and Services Committee (PSC) asked the team to develop any
> >> accompanying commentary they choose as to areas where the perceive that
> the
> >> rules might benefit from revision and, where appropriate, to suggest
> >> revised language.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/2016/J
> >>> uly/Doc_24_0716.pdf
> >>>
> >>> While the CAC's role is solely to respond to projects and issues
> >> assigned by the ARRL Programs and Services Committee; the CAC chairman
> can
> >> recommend future CAC projects and issues to the PSC.
> >>>
> >>> 73
> >>> Frank
> >>> W3LPL
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>
> > --
> > 73, de Hans, K0HB
> > --
> > "Just a boy and his radio"™
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> --
73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"Just a boy and his radio"™
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|