Hi Folks,
While I was unfortunately not able to get to participate this year, I
do love this GAQP event. It is really more of an event than an actual
contest and it is a LOT of FUN.
Too many changes make things tough ...especially for logging program
writers etc. ....there are many unintended consequences when changes
are made so things need to be well thought through before we leap off
the cliff.
As far as working Georgia counties for USACA or some other award etc.,
it is tough for those folks in close-in states to get much out of the
GAQP. One way to do it is to get a small group together and drive about
400-500 miles away and set up a temporary field day site or operate from
a friend's station for the contest. It is a fun thing to do and your
Georgia county needs will dwindle rapidly. I don't think I ever had as
much fun as I did when I drove up to N9JF (Jim)'s QTH and worked the QSO
party from his farm. It was a hoot!
If you have never done this, try it some time. Great fun working the
familiar calls and chasing them around the bands. Ham radio heaven for
me!
Just my 2 cents.
73 de Greg NM2L
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:56 PM, John T. Laney III wrote:
> About GQP rules changes:
>
> 1. I don't feel strongly about self-spotting, one way or the other.
>
> 2. I am very much opposed to multipliers per band. The all time
> record scores would be meaningless. There would be an almost
> unlimited number of mults, so a "clean sweep" or even close to one
> would be impossible. 159 counties times two modes times six or eight
> bands = 1908 or 2544 possible mults for each out-of-state station.
> Might as well make each different station or QSO a "multiplier. "
>
> 3. I don't feel strongly about the times of the QSO party except I'd
> like to see it stay at ten hours per day for a total of twenty hours
> on the weekend. The hours were selected in 1999 to be the same as the
> FL QP had established the preceding year. They then changed their
> hours and we might consider changing ours too. Their change was to
> give more time in the mornings when conditions were supposed to be
> better to Europe for DX contacts. Turns out not to have been the case
> since 10 and 15 meters are almost never used in the FQP and if they
> were used, there is almost never propagation to Europe at the end of
> April. In fact, for the past few years, Europe has been better later
> in the day than earlier on 15M. Also, while we didn't experience it
> this year. the 1400Z start time on Sunday has been too early for 20M
> conditions to be good to anywhere in the past few years. 40M is still
> usable for a few hundred miles at 1400Z, but it is usually the case
> all day long. Starting earlier on Saturday would mean practically no
> time for working 80 meters and certainly there would be no chance for
> the west coast on 80. Remember that FQP doesn't use 80M at all. On
> balance, I think the hours we have now are fine. I'd not way to stop
> using 80M. At the bottom of the next cycle, we will be glad we have
> those hours on 80M.
>
> 4. I don't know why we added six meters. I assume somebody asked for
> it, but then whoever asked for it never shows up and makes QSOs on 6M.
> It is relatively easy to put 6M in a car, but there usually is no 6M
> Es propagation in mid April. And, although I work a lot of 6 meters,
> I have NEVER heard anybody on 6M working a contest that wasn't a VHF
> contest. No QSO parties. No activity in RAC (Canada) contests that
> include 6M. 160M has seen some activity the past two years. There
> are a few guys who work only 160M. Last year, one of our 50 year
> anniversary ops from the 1962 contest was K3JJG who works only 160M
> these days and made eight QSOs last year, as I recall. N4GG made a
> lot of QSOs there. Jeff, KU8E, made QSOs on 160M low power this year.
> I vote to drop six M and keep 160M. Incidentally, the old GQPs, 1960s
> 1970s include 160M and I made a few QSOs on 160M with a Viking
> Adventurer in two of the parties in the time period around 1967-1968.
> I think we didn't include it when SECC took over the GQP in 1999. We
> patterned our GQP on the revived FQP of the year before that didn't
> even include 80. We included 80, but didn't think about the
> historical precedent of including 160M. Now that I think of it, our
> early QSOs included two meters and must have included six meters also.
> In the latter part of the time I ran the GQP in the late 1970s or
> early 1980s, I recall working stations on 146.52 simplex (repeater
> QSOs were not permitted). I didn't have a six meter rig capable of
> QSOs on CW or SSB until 1994.
>
> And just to respond to someone who invariably wants us to make GA
> counties mults for GA stations too, remember about increasing the
> mults so that they are relatively meaningless. But the real reason is
> from many years of observing that, in QSO parties that allow county
> mults for in state stations, there is a lot of low band activity when
> propagation hardly exists outside the state and there are a lot of in
> state stations who run around calling other stations in the state and
> not working any or many out-of-state stations. I think of these as
> "inward directed" QSO parties. I understand that ours is to promote
> GA and to help anyone work all GA counties. If that is the case, our
> current rule that allows GA stations to count GA as one mult and all
> other states and Canadian areas strikes the correct balance. It is
> also consistent with the rule for the majority of state QSO parties.
>
> 73, John, K4BAI.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SECC mailing list
> SECC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/secc
|