I would also like to have a membership list, preferably in MS Excel
format.
Would it be "safe" in a MEMBERS ONLY section on the website? UserID and
Password would be required to access the subdirectory for this info.
Webmaster?
I see no reason why a "moving circle" can't work. I would think that the
intent is to localize the participants...but that might be too logical
for the ARRL?
If we didn't have to define the center of our circle to the ARRL, I'd
just keep quiet and move the circle based on our interpretation of the
definition.
Also, is the radius defined as statute or nautical mile? If none were
stated, I'd use NM instead of SM.
--
Matt Lee, K4AQ
Atlanta, GA USA
<K4AQ@arrl.net>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: secc-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:secc-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of K4SB
> Sent: Wednesday, 08 September, 2004 14:33
> To: secc
> Subject: Re: [SECC] Correction - Club Competition Rules
>
>
> John Laney wrote:
> > The 175 mile "circle" is thus much more important than I
> had given it
> > credit for being. Ed, K4SB, has done some work in the past
> on moving
> > the circle. I think there is probably a general consensus that we
> > should try to move the top of the circle down so the circle
> includes all
> > of North Ga, but as little of TN and NC as possible and see
> if we can
> > still include all our SC members and see if we can include
> AL members
> > such as K4WI and KS4YT/KV4T, and GA members such as KT4ZB and W4BQF.
>
> The software for this is written, and is accurate to within 1/10000th
> of a mile.
>
> KS4YT/KV4T already are well within the circle as it presently stands.
> ( 166.0539 miles ) and will not be a factor in extending the circle to
> the SE by a few miles since they are almost exactly due West of the
> circle center. However, on a NE-SW path, W4OC is the controlling
> factor with regard to K4WI. They live exactly 12.0123 miles too close
> to each other. Even moving the circle so that W4OC is exactly at 175
> miles, still leaves a 6+ mile gap with Cort. Someone has to move.
>
> As far as other members go, the problem is that in spite of repeated
> requests, I DO NOT have a full roster of the SECC, not even an old
> one. Now, it's easy enough to input the data for KT4ZB and W4BQF. But
> who is then being left out? And if a realignment is done, based on the
> above, it could well move a member outside the circle. I believe it is
> written in stone that no member presently in the circle who has
> fulfilled his "obligations" with respect to score submission may be
> removed.
>
> Here, some problems may be solved by removing some of the ones who do
> not participate.
> And I wonder what the legality would be if the circle was shifted on a
> contest by contest basis? Let's say that W4OC will not participate in
> the ARRL CW SS ( in which case, I will kill him!! ):> ) Would it then
> be legal and/or possible to shift the center of the circle some xx
> number of miles to the SE, thus picking up K4WI, while retaining
> everyone else. I see no reason this could not be done, but again, it
> would in all likelihood require an amendment to the C&BLs. And of
> course, the controlling factor would have to be an email from W4OC
> stating that he will not participate in a particular ARRL test. Keep
> in mind that ONLY the ARRL tests have the 175 mile limit. And the same
> may be true in picking up some of our SC members.
>
> Again, the software is written and it has been tested thoroughly.( a
> point directly N of the Equator at the same longitude must be a factor
> only of the difference in Latitude, corrected for shortening ) ( the
> equation is similar in Longitude since we are in a relatively small
> difference in Latitude ) But I simple must have a full membership
> roster.
>
> I have also considered the idea of suggesting the Club petition the
> ARRL to restructure their definition of the circle. To group a Club
> defined as "medium" with a club whose 175 mile circle may very well
> encompass several States, is in my opinion biased.
>
> Anyway, that's the way it is now. BTW, I really have enjoyed reading
> the "histories" submitted. Who ever came up with that idea deserves
> 100 "attaboys".
>
> 73
> Ed
|