----- Original Message -----
From: <vhfcontesting-request@contesting.com>
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 12:58 AM
Subject: VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 5, Issue 10
> Send VHFcontesting mailing list submissions to
> vhfcontesting@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> vhfcontesting-request@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> vhfcontesting-owner@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of VHFcontesting digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Sprint-O-gram
> 2. Re: A Brief History of (Captive) Roving (Ev Tupis (W2EV))
> 3. Please remove (James E McClellan)
> 4. Re: A Brief History of (Captive) Roving (Ev Tupis (W2EV))
> 5. Re: A Brief History of (Captive) Roving (Ed Kucharski)
> 6. Captive Rovers - not the issue? (Bob Witte, K0NR)
> 7. RE: 2 meter antenna question. (Donald M. Ross)
> 8. Contests Rules... (Ray Johnson)
> 9. RE: A Brief History of (Captive) Roving (Greg Mills)
> 10. Re: A Brief History of (Captive) Roving (Ed Kucharski)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 21:50:21 EDT
> From: KE2N@cs.com
> To: w3iy@fcc.net, microwave@wa1mba.org
> Cc: packrats@mailman.qth.net
> Cc: k8gp@k8gp.net
> Cc: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> Subject: [VHFcontesting] Re: Sprint-O-gram
> Message-ID: <bd.31daa358.2be5cbdd@cs.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Precedence: list
> Message: 1
>
> Thanks for the contact Bill.
>
> Having spent all day Thursday and Friday building the 1296 (& 2304 future)
> array and putting it on the tower, I was happy to work *anybody*. I did
> manage 8 Q's in 6 grids (missing FM18 - the Grid Pirate's home square). Best
> DX was K1TEO.
>
> Looking forward to more of the same and getting 2304 up and running.
>
> 73
> Ken
>
> FM18ew
> ------------------------------
>
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 21:52:13 -0400
> From: "Ev Tupis (W2EV)" <w2ev@arrl.net>
> To: VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] A Brief History of (Captive) Roving
> Message-ID: <3EB4724D.4976CC2B@arrl.net>
> References: <Sea2-F33GsQpNsS5RJZ0001b046@hotmail.com>
> <3EB44B7B.A2742521@arrl.net> <015101c311da$b5243ea0$0200a8c0@Home>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Precedence: list
> Message: 2
>
> Tom Carney wrote:
> <snip>
> > I've never even heard a captive rover much less had one refuse to work me.)
>
>
> Is it possible that the "Captive Rover" is a mythological creature? No one
> likes it, but that's ok 'cause it doesn't really exist. :)
>
> Ok...fess up. Who on this list has had a rover refuse to QSO them? Then fess
> up as to why -- truthfully. My bets are that (if it HAS happened) it's
> because
> your station on the band that you wanted to work them on was too piddly weak
> to
> waste time with...they're on a schedule, after all). Remember...THEY have a
> strategy, too. It's not all about you.
>
> giggling,
> Ev, W2EV
>
> ------------------------------
>
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 21:56:30 -0400
> From: James E McClellan <n8luv_jm@juno.com>
> To: VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> Subject: [VHFcontesting] Please remove
> Message-ID: <20030503.215630.3480.0.n8luv_jm@juno.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Precedence: list
> Message: 3
>
> Please remove me from the VHF list.
> ------------------------------
>
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 22:27:00 -0400
> From: "Ev Tupis (W2EV)" <w2ev@arrl.net>
> To: VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] A Brief History of (Captive) Roving
> Message-ID: <3EB47A74.C2855B40@arrl.net>
> References: <Sea2-F33GsQpNsS5RJZ0001b046@hotmail.com>
> <3EB44B7B.A2742521@arrl.net> <002401c311d7$e25380f0$1402a8c0@mcbain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Precedence: list
> Message: 4
>
> Dave Wendling wrote:
> >
> > > NOTE: Not to the exclusion of others...but with a special effort to
> > > make sure the multi-op that Elmered them got taken care of.
> >
> > Hey Ev,
> >
> > We are not talking about the vast majority of Rovers here.
>
> Then this supports the idea that the "problem" (if there is one) of "captive
> rovers" (if they actually exist) is miniscule, and inconsequential to the
> overall outcome of an event. Hardly worthy of legislating against.
>
> Ev
>
> PS...I'd have been torked had a rover next to me refused to work me, too.
> That
> kind of ungentlemanly response would have at least assured that I stuck around
> to call CQ within 10-KHz of their working frequency until they knuckled under.
> :))
>
> Of course I'm kidding...right? hehehehe
>
> ------------------------------
>
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 22:45:41 -0400
> From: Ed Kucharski <k3dne@adelphia.net>
> To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] A Brief History of (Captive) Roving
> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030503224314.023a9d38@pop.dc2.adelphia.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Precedence: list
> Message: 5
>
> Ev,
>
> I'm sure your elmered rover scenario in your post below happens frequently=
> and that is how the system should work.
>
> BUT (!) that has not always been the case and may still not be. There are=
> multi-op stations (I know of one) that have equipped rover stations with=
> microwave gear, that almost could be considered proprietary in that it=
> operates on limited and unique frequencies designed to QSO with the=
> sponsoring multi-op station only. This practice started before the rover=
> category existed - instead of roving, the well equipped "portable"=
> microwave stations would go to adjacent grids and prior to grids to=
> sections and set-up and work the sponsoring multi-op. As I understand the=
> history, the project was a significant undertaking and somewhat of a marvel=
> of design and implementation. IMHO such an undertaking is not consistent=
> with the spirit and intent of radio contesting and that is what has me=
> miffed about captive rovers. Can I prove this existence? Nope - I don't=
> have logs, pictures, recordings or other evidence other than information=
> from extremely reliable sources and personally overheard conversations. I=
> do think some good has come from captive rovers though. Secondary to their=
> existence, single-ops, rovers and especially multi-op stations have pushed=
> harder to become active on microwaves - that was good. =20
>
> I think that KB1EAA may have stumbled across one of these rovers as he=
> alluded to in a portion of a previous post pasted below.
>
> At 09:02 PM 5/1/2003 -0400, Dave Wendling wrote:
> You haven't been out much. I have been in my rover parked next to captive=20
> rovers on Mt Wachussets in MA who would not give me a point even after I=20
> walked over and introduced myself to them! I also personally know several=20
> rovers who received all of their microwave gear from a big multiop station.=
> =20
> Pretending it doesn't happen or keeping your head buried in the sand won't=
> =20
> make it go away.
>
> BTW, I don't have a problem with rovers who received all or most of their=
> gear from a big multi-op as long as they QSO with more stations than just=
> that multi-op. I have been complaining about the captive rover issue for=
> decades and I doubt there will ever be any rule changes to discourage or=
> prohibit the activity - any such rule change would probably have an=
> unintentional trickle down effect to hurt more than it would help. Kinda=
> like how the new rover rules that came about after the infamous grid=
> circling incident occurred that ticked off many established rovers to quit=
> roving. I only wish that the time and effort that goes into this practice=
> could have a benefit for stations other than the sponsoring multi-op. =20
> I have said before that the rover category was the best thing for vhf+=
> contesting since sliced bread - I only wish there were more of them for me=
> to work!
>
> 73,
> Ed K3DNE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 07:06 PM 5/3/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >1. There was a time when there was little activity above 1296 MHz.
> >2. Multi-Ops _Elmered_ rovers into the higher bands for obvious reasons.
> > NOTE: Isn't this EXACTLY what needs to be done to "save the VHF=
> contests"?
> > Let's not be hyprcritical. ;-)
> >3. Rovers thanked them by making sure that the multi-ops got logged from
> > every visited grid on every available band.
> > NOTE: Not to the exclusion of others...but with a special effort to make
> > sure the multi-op that Elmered them got taken care of.
> >
> >I don't call that captive, I call it gratitude.
> >
> >The term "captive rover" was coined by the people that got 'miffed' (read=
> this
> >sentence over and over until you understand it).
> >
> >Why do people operate contests as Rovers? (get ready, you've seen this=
> before)
> >o It's fun (duh!)
> >o There's a reward
> > The question is, what is the reward? Ask the Rovers...don't ass-u-me.
> >
> >I have never heard the term "captive rover" used by anyone other than those=
> that
> >somehow missed working a Rover in a grid they needed (by the way...have I
> >mentioned the power of BEACONet.25's CU2QSO strategy yet?).
> >
> >Ev, W2EV
> >
> >PS...How do you get a fleet of "captive rovers"? Easy... ELMER THEM! Save=
> the
> >VHF Contest while you're at it. How can you go wrong? It's a Two-fer-One=
> Sale!
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >VHFcontesting mailing list
> >VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting=20
>
> ------------------------------
>
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 21:38:17 -0600
> From: "Bob Witte, K0NR" <list@rwitte.com>
> To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Subject: [VHFcontesting] Captive Rovers - not the issue?
> Message-ID: <000901c311ee$9b516fc0$0200a8c0@aoldsl.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="Windows-1252"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Precedence: list
> Message: 6
>
> The "captive rover" discussion seems to swirling around some notion
> of whether a rover (or any operator, for that matter) should choose
> who they try to work during a contest. Hmmm, seems like a silly
> question to me....and not really enforceable.
>
> A better question might be about whether this rule needs to be
> modified such that a multi-op station can't work its own operators
> on any band:
>
> 7.3. Multi-operator stations may not include QSOs with their
> own operators except on frequencies higher than 2.3 GHz.
> Even then, a complete, different station (transmitter, receiver
> and antenna) must exist for each QSO made under these conditions.
>
> I am trying to think of any other radio contest where you can work
> your own operators. Is there one?
>
> Bob Witte K0NR
> (formerly KB0CY)
> k0nr@arrl.net
> DXCC WAS VUCC
> http://www.rwitte.com
> ------------------------------
>
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 23:00:58 -0500
> From: "Donald M. Ross" <dross@sirinet.net>
> To: "George Fremin III" <geoiii@kkn.net>
> Cc: VHF Contest Reflector <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Subject: RE: [VHFcontesting] 2 meter antenna question.
> Message-ID: <MABBJJHPBBNBECFPEGBAMEEEEEAA.dross@sirinet.net>
> In-Reply-To: <20030503200822.GD12865@kkn.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Precedence: list
> Message: 7
>
> Hi George,
>
> I have used the KB6KQ loops for several years (learned about them from ND2X)
> without any problems.
>
> Around town, I usually run just one of them mounted in the left rear stake
> mount on a GeoTool mount. When roving for fun or contesting, I run dual
> loops mounted in the same place. The dual loops appear to "hear" better and
> I get better reports when running them than with a single loop. Due to the
> mounting configuration, I cannot do instant switching between single and
> dual loops, but can make the switch in about 2 minutes. I normally run the
> single loop with 25 - 40 watts, depending on the radio in use, but run the
> large TE Systems amp (400w on my Bird) with the dual loops. You and I have
> worked with this configuration before (EM04 to EM00 for the rest of you). A
> friend of mine, NH6CJ, runs the M2 Loop and we have operated them side by
> side on the top of Mount Scott (EM04rr) several times. I won't comment on
> whether one of them is "better" than the other since the antenna is only
> part of the total station configuration and there were no matching
> components between our two stations. Mike loves his M2 Loop and I love my
> KB6KQ loops.
>
> I have used the M2 2M9SSB both portable and permanent and really like the
> antenna. While not as good as the 2M18XXX straight up in a fixed location,
> it is a solid performer and breaks apart easily for moving between sites.
> For June, I'm going to run the single 2M9SSB, but will probably try dual
> ones for the July contest as I attempt to put all 14 Oklahoma grids on the
> air.
>
> Hope this topic draws as many responses as the captive rover one did.
>
> 73, Don, NL7CO/EM04
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of George Fremin III
> Sent: 03 May 2003 15:08
> To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> Subject: [VHFcontesting] 2 meter antenna question.
>
>
> Is there anyone who uses an omni directional or near omnicirectional
> antenna in their VHF contest station on 144mhz or higher?
>
> If so - what are you using or what have you tried?
>
> Is anyone using more than one yagi or yagi arrays that
> is either fixed or on seprate towers/masts?
>
> If so - what are you using and why?
>
> If you have two yagis or yagi arrays do you have or have you
> had switching that would allow you to run both systems
> at one time so that you can listen and transmit in more
> than one direction?
>
> What worked or didnt' work?
>
> --
> George Fremin III - K5TR
> geoiii@kkn.net
> http://www.kkn.net/~k5tr
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
> ------------------------------
>
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 00:18:28 -0400
> From: "Ray Johnson" <Ray@w9ray.org>
> To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> Subject: [VHFcontesting] Contests Rules...
> Message-ID: <E19CAxI-0007sS-00@huron.vervehosting.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Precedence: list
> Message: 8
>
>
> I fail to see where it states in the contest rules that Digital modes
> are not allowed... Many hundreds of digital mode contacts are made
> every contest.
> Actually the rules say nothing about modes you can't use, Just
> 1.4.Stations may be worked for credit only once per band from any
> given grid square, regardless of mode(BINGO).....
> you cannot use 146.52.....
> Cross-band contacts are not permitted.....
> Contacts made through repeaters, digipeaters, or gateways are not
> permitted...
> And a rule some people dont know about ..2.3.2.A rover may not
> operate with more than one call sign.
>
> Just my 2 cents worth... its all written on paper..
>
> Ray J
> W9RAY
> EN44gt
> ABCDE
> WWW.W9RAY.ORG
>
>
>
>
>
> > There is much confusion at the ARRL and even more out on the air. I
> was told
> > last September that non-digital modes (Except CW) were NOT permitted
> in the
> > VHF-UHF contests. They are permitted in other contests. Last
> December,
> > before Beacon net was approved, I attempted to get a number of
> applications
> > approved and received several e-mails from Dan explaining why they
> were not.
> >
> > I made several attempts to get the ARRL to make a statement about
> the issue.
> > They seem to want to stay off the subject because it is complicated.
> Hence
> > my e-mails to the vhf list. We are now a month away from the next
> contest.
> >
> > Right now I can't even use Pac term and Beacon net does not support
> JT44.
> >
> > Everyone seems to have a misunderstanding about what you did. First
> everyone
> > needs to understand the Layers, non-standard compared to the ISO
> model but I
> > might suggest a simple view:
> >
> > Layer 1 transport - FM / ssb / other
> > Layer 2 protocol - AX25 / PSK31 / JT44 / others
> > Layer 3 Application - Beacon net / Hyper term / WSJT / etc
> > Layer 4 the HAM - KE3HT / others (This is where most rules
> violations
> > occur)
> >
> > Basically, rules adherence wise, all you did was make your program
> run
> > without a a grid or other location information did you not? The AX25
> part is
> > the same as used by any other application is not configured with
> > digipeteing. Why can't I use a different application with AX25? The
> ARRL has
> > not approved it nor explained the terms with which they permitted
> Beacon
> > net.
> >
> > The issue of self spotting seems to be a vague problem as well.
> Calling CQ
> > on CW or SSB with a GRID or lat/long appears to be accepted,
> everyone does
> > it. Yet it appears to be illegal to use an automated calling system
> like an
> > AX25 program with the GRID, it is then called self spotting. I am
> not so
> > concerned with this part since I don't need to CQ with my grid or
> lat/long.
> > WSJT can be configured by not using the standard CQ text and omit
> the GRID.
> > But if its in the rules we should obey it.
> >
> > I have the hope of being able to convince others to use JT44 or
> PSK31 but
> > the argument I get most of the time is that they don't want the
> computers
> > but most often they say the ARRL does not allow it.
> >
> > Tim Ertl (KE3HT/r Pennsylvania)
> > ke3ht@lmrgroup.com
> > Rover: http://www.lmrgroup.com/ke3ht/rover
> > Sept 2002 contest: http://www.lmrgroup.com/ke3ht/rover/sep2002
> >
> > ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C311AB.09289440
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > name="dan-2.txt"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > Content-Disposition: attachment;
> > filename="dan-2.txt"
> >
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:48:45 -0500
> > From: "Henderson, Dan N1ND" <dhenderson@arrl.org>
> > Subject: [VHFcontesting] Further statement on BeacoNet
> >
> > Please forward to any reflector as you deem
> > appropriate:
> >
> > After additional review and conversation The ARRL has
> > come to believe that BEACONet is similar to an
> > automated CQing system. It facilitates the
> > solicitation of contacts. It uses a band that is
> > usable in the particular contest, and QSOs are made on
> > such radios. It uses a mode that is acceptable for
> > contacts in the particular contest. BEACONet seems to
> > comply with the letter and spirit of the contest
> > rules.
> >
> > Although this might be a "new" concept in V/UHF
> > contesting, it doesn't seem contrary to the rules. In
> > view of this interpretation, it appears to that
> > BEACONet does not violate any contest rules, and
> > therefore the use of BEACONet is permissible.
> >
> > If you have questions regarding this rules
> > interpretation, please contact me at n1nd@arrl.org
> >
> > Thanks and 73
> >
> > Dan Henderson, N1ND
> > ARRL Contest Branch Manager
> >
> >
> > ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C311AB.09289440--
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> >
> >
> > End of VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 5, Issue 8
> > *******************************************
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 00:19:39 -0400
> From: "Greg Mills" <gmills@frontiernet.net>
> To: <VHFcontesting@contesting.com>
> Subject: RE: [VHFcontesting] A Brief History of (Captive) Roving
> Message-ID: <000401c311f4$6190ae30$6501a8c0@gregory1>
> In-Reply-To: <3EB47A74.C2855B40@arrl.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="us-ascii"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Precedence: list
> Message: 9
>
> Okay, I have to admit... y'all can let the air out of my tires, clobber
> my front ends, and bend my yagis into pretzels.
>
> That was ME on Watchusett, I think? I told the guy a few minutes, as I
> had a schedule I was on for a little while. Well... I then put 40 Watts
> of 3 1/2 GHz RF into the front end of my 3 and 5 Gig transverters (and 2
> was deaf for some other reason). Sorry, but I wasn't in much of a mood
> to play radio while trying to figure out why I couldn't hear anything.
>
> Greg Mills
> K2LDT
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ev Tupis
> (W2EV)
> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 10:27 PM
> To: VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] A Brief History of (Captive) Roving
>
> Dave Wendling wrote:
> >
> > > NOTE: Not to the exclusion of others...but with a special effort
> to
> > > make sure the multi-op that Elmered them got taken care of.
> >
> > Hey Ev,
> >
> > We are not talking about the vast majority of Rovers here.
>
> Then this supports the idea that the "problem" (if there is one) of
> "captive
> rovers" (if they actually exist) is miniscule, and inconsequential to
> the
> overall outcome of an event. Hardly worthy of legislating against.
>
> Ev
>
> PS...I'd have been torked had a rover next to me refused to work me,
> too. That
> kind of ungentlemanly response would have at least assured that I stuck
> around
> to call CQ within 10-KHz of their working frequency until they knuckled
> under.
> :))
>
> Of course I'm kidding...right? hehehehe
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
> ------------------------------
>
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 00:57:50 -0400
> From: Ed Kucharski <k3dne@adelphia.net>
> To: "Ev Tupis (W2EV)" <w2ev@arrl.net>, VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] A Brief History of (Captive) Roving
> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030503225011.023cadb0@pop.dc2.adelphia.net>
> In-Reply-To: <3EB47A74.C2855B40@arrl.net>
> References: <Sea2-F33GsQpNsS5RJZ0001b046@hotmail.com>
> <3EB44B7B.A2742521@arrl.net>
> <002401c311d7$e25380f0$1402a8c0@mcbain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Precedence: list
> Message: 10
>
> At 10:27 PM 5/3/2003 -0400, Ev Tupis (W2EV) wrote:
>
> >Then this supports the idea that the "problem" (if there is one) of "captive
> >rovers" (if they actually exist) is miniscule, and inconsequential to the
> >overall outcome of an event. Hardly worthy of legislating against.
>
> Ev,
>
> Hardly minuscule or inconsequential at all! Think about the potential...if
> a multi-op sponsors a half dozen captive rovers (I define captive rovers as
> a rover who is sponsored by a multi-op and only QSO's with that muti-op)
> equipped for QSO's on just 4 (it could be more maybe up to 6) microwave
> bands and sends them all to just their own grid and all the grids that
> touch their grid (that's 9 grids) and works them all from each grid at 4
> points per qso that alone would add up to lots of points and potential mults.
>
> That is 216 QSO's x 4 points per QSO = 864 QSO points and 54 grids. It is
> possible, maybe probable, that the multi-op station would have worked all
> those grids on those 4 microwave bands with other multi-op, single-op or
> non-captive rover stations anyway so the big advantage may be more for QSO
> points rather than mults.
>
> Take a hypothetical ARRL VHF QSO Party for example (this is an example only
> even though the QSO's, QSO Points and Mults are actual scores from a recent
> contest - there are NO implications or accusations intended in this
> example). Multi-op station A worked 2363 QSO's, 4519 QSO points and 374
> grids for a score of 1,690,106 points and was the winner of the unlimited
> multi category. Multi-op station B worked 1987 QSO's, 3323 QSO points and
> 426 grids for a score of 1,415,598 points and finished 2'nd in the
> unlimited multi category. If multi-op station A utilized the 6 different
> captive rovers as described above their QSO total would drop to 2147, QSO
> points to 3655 and for the sake of argument keep the grid total the same at
> 374 grids the score would drop to 1,366,970. If multi-op station B did not
> utilize captive rovers their score would remain the same (1,415,598) and
> now multi-op station B would have finished in first place in the category.
>
> An interesting scenario. At first blush it appears that multi-op station A
> would keep very busy trying to keep track of and work all of it's captive
> rovers and would have a difficult time working and scheduling other
> stations on those microwave bands. At second blush that is a pretty
> demanding rover schedule to keep for those captive rovers. Possible?
>
> 73,
> Ed K3DNE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
> End of VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 5, Issue 10
> ********************************************
>
|