Joe, I think something along those lines is a great idea and would add to
the number of operating strategies (and station optimization strategies)
that could be used tow in. Most logs include the exact frequency the QSO
was made on, so it would be possible to verify S&P vs run.
73,
Matt NQ6N
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Joe <nss@mwt.net> wrote:
> Ok lets take this one step further, and it could be interesting, but how
> to police it?
>
> QSO Points.
>
> Points made by CQing, = 1 QSO Point
> Points made by S&Ping, = 2 points
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Joe WB9SBD
>
> Sig
> The Original Rolling Ball Clock
> Idle Tyme
> Idle-Tyme.com
> http://www.idle-tyme.com
> On 4/8/2017 10:47 AM, Jim Neiger wrote:
>
>> Matt, let's take this to an another level of absurdity.
>>
>> How is the new single operator 2BSIQ any less onerous? OK, I'm
>> transmitting on only one band at a time, but the pileups that my dueling
>> CQ's have generated on each band most likely never stop, ergo, by my direct
>> actions, I'm 'hogging' twice the bandwidth. And the rarer my multiplier,
>> most probably, the bigger my pileups and I've maximized my HOGGING
>> COEFFICIENT (HC).
>>
>> One could say that multi-multi's W3LPL, K3LR et al have taken their HC to
>> the penultimate level by sometimes (incessantly) CQing on six frequencies
>> simultaneously. Should we eliminate multi-multi's or state that they can
>> never CQ on more than 3 bands at a any given moment? Just think how this
>> will help all the East Coasters who can't find a clear run frequency to
>> Europe!!
>>
>> Or to the maxima HC absurdity: only select stations can ever CQ. Most of
>> us will designated with an HC of Zero and forever be relegated to the ash
>> heap of Search and Pounce. Assisted and packet spots can take on a whole
>> new level of appreciation and the designated CQers can award trophies to
>> those who spotted them the most times thereby helping all of us by opening
>> up all of this newly found wide open frequency spectra.
>>
>> Can't wait.
>>
>> Vy 73
>>
>> Jim Neiger N6TJ
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/8/2017 5:48 AM, Matt NQ6N wrote:
>>
>>> If the concern is bandwidth used, shouldn't split operation be banned as
>>> well? How does same band dueling CQ use more bandwidth than "listening on
>>> this frequency and 7050"?
>>>
>>> In both cases it is the activity triggered by the running station on
>>> both frequencies that prevents those frequencies from being used by someone
>>> else.
>>>
>>> Not arguing for banning either, just pointing out that if bandwidth is
>>> the concern they are essentially identical examples of "hogging" a scarce
>>> resource.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Matt NQ6N
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 7:39 AM Jim Neiger <n6tj@sbcglobal.net <mailto:
>>> n6tj@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> i agree. Like a few more signals on any band are suddenly going to
>>> overwhelm everyone? Operators can, and will, adjust.
>>>
>>> I remember the 2002 ARRL 10 Meters contest from ZD8. The band was
>>> loaded, every kc up to 29.2. To paraphrase Neil Diamond's song:
>>> Beautiful Noise...................
>>>
>>> As far as I'm concerned, wall to wall signals from one end of our
>>> spectra to the other is music. Especially the next five years of
>>> solar
>>> doldrums, we can only dream..............
>>>
>>> Vy 73
>>>
>>> Jim Neiger N6TJ
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/7/2017 10:16 AM, Stein-Roar Brobakken wrote:
>>> > Hi guys
>>> >
>>> > Why not add the category SOMT single op multi transmitter? 👍
>>> >
>>> > So those having skills to run multiple vfo at once can do
>>> practice their skills??
>>> >
>>> > People are just different and some manage to make it!!
>>> >
>>> > Best Regards,
>>> > Stein-Roar Brobakken
>>> > LB3RE K3RAG
>>> > www.lb3re.com <http://www.lb3re.com>
>>> > post@lb3re.com <mailto:post@lb3re.com>
>>> > GSM +4748224421// +4791999421
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Den 7. apr. 2017 kl. 17.20 skrev Ron Notarius W3WN
>>> <wn3vaw@verizon.net <mailto:wn3vaw@verizon.net>>:
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >> IMHO, let's not make too much out of this decision.
>>> >>
>>> >> As explained in the newsbite that made the announcement, the
>>> practice of
>>> >> "dueling CQ's" was never intended to be permitted. Only
>>> recently has
>>> >> technology and (to be fair) operator skill advanced to the
>>> point where it
>>> >> was possible.
>>> >>
>>> >> And now someone did it. Correctly pointing out that within the
>>> strict
>>> >> letter of the contest rules in place, the practice was not
>>> actually
>>> >> prohibited.
>>> >>
>>> >> I know many believe "if it is not strictly forbidden, it is
>>> implicitly
>>> >> allowed". On something like this, it is unfortunate that
>>> accepted practice
>>> >> had to be explicitly mentioned. Regardless, an unintended
>>> consequence of
>>> >> not spelling out this specific instance was that a loophole was
>>> created and
>>> >> exploited.
>>> >>
>>> >> If you want to give a tip of the hat to the PJ4G folks for
>>> finding and
>>> >> exploiting said loophole, well, they or someone on the team did
>>> the work and
>>> >> uncovered it.
>>> >>
>>> >> The important thing is... They did not break the rules, in fact
>>> they
>>> >> strictly adhered to the rules, as they were written at the time.
>>> >>
>>> >> Now that it's been exposed, the loophole has been closed and
>>> the unintended
>>> >> consequence should not happen again. And that is how it should
>>> be.
>>> >>
>>> >> And that should be the end of that.
>>> >>
>>> >> 73, ron w3wn
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ---
>>> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>> software.
>>> >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
>>> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
>>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto: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
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|