VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

[VHFcontesting] Re: Good Buddy QSOs

To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Subject: [VHFcontesting] Re: Good Buddy QSOs
From: kb8u_vhf@hotmail.com (kb8u vhf)
Date: Thu Jun 19 16:44:46 2003
> > > I wonder if, in the VHF contests, how things would
> > > look if we eliminate
> > > unique band-mode QSOs?  For instance, if WW1WWW/R
> > > makes one and only one
> > > 902 MHz QSO with NN1NNN, that QSO is removed from
> > > both stations' logs.
> >

And what if there are only two stations active on 902 MHz within range of 
either WW1WWW/R and NN1NNN?  Why should they not get credit for their QSO?  
Maybe another station will hear them coordinating on 144 MHz and get 
motivated to add 902.  Overhearing stations coordinating QSOs on higer bands 
has motivated me to add them to my station.

A rule change like this would probably kill nearly all millimeter-wave QSOs 
in contests, and many microwave QSOs in sparsely populated areas. It's a bad 
idea.

Also note that multioperator stations are specifically allowed to work their 
own operators on 2304.1 MHz and above.  This rule seems specifically 
designed to encourage 'manufactured contacts'.  I assume the reason is that 
by extension it encourages microwave activity in general.  Personally, this 
rule helps my score a great deal.  No, I'm not an operator at a multiop nor 
a rover.

I think this manufactured QSO 'problem' is way overblown.  If a casual 
operator wants to give his friend a QSO, or a big multiop wants to equip 
rovers that only have time/resources to work only the mother station on 
certain bands then that's fine by me.  When I hear a casual operator doing 
so I call them immediately and very rarely do I get ignored.  Demanding 
rovers work more than 1 call per band can frequently be impractical or 
impossible.

Russell Dwarshuis, KB8U

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>