Fred, Ev, others: my opinion sides with Ev's - maybe from a mountaintop
multi perspective, the microwave points per QSO seem inflated. But ask a
single-op in an average QTH trying to justify investing more in the upper
bands. Or a Rover. Or a LM team thinking about going Unlimited. If you
don't keep an incentive for most operators to get on the microwaves, they
won't - and if you think microwave activity is low now...
-73, Ron WZ1V FN31
At 03:37 PM 4/9/2006, Radiosporting Fan wrote:
>--- Fred Lass <felasstic@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I have a question. Do the point values on each band
> > still make sense? (1 point for 6 & 2, 2 points for
> > 222 & 432, 4 points for microwave.) In my opinion,
> > back when microwave activity was low and sections
> > were multipliers the bonuses were valid. If bonus
> > points per QSO are still valid with grid squares,
> > are the current values the best numbers?
>
>It's interesting that you ask this question, Fred. I
>think that the ARRL point-value system does a *good*
>job of assigning a roughly appropriate QSO point
>value...based on the physics of the communication
>circuit.
>
>I would offer that if there was any "tweak" to be made
>that it would result in minor changes and would be met
>with considerable resistance. The January VHF SS
>values come closest to "perfect" of any values I know
>of.
>
>If you're asking for a discussion on the topic, then I
>would suggest that QSO points could be log-based
>(rather than linear). Here's the example:
>
>50-MHz+ 1-point each
>100-MHz+ 2-points
>200-MHz+ 3-points
>400-MHz+ 4-points
>800-MHz+ 5-points
>1.6-GHz+ 6-points
>3.2-GHz+ 7-points
>6.4-GHz+ 8-points
>12.8GHz+ 9-points
>25-GHz+ 10-points
>50-GHz+ 11-points
>100-GHz+ 12-points
>200-GHz+ 13-points
>400-GHz+ 14-points
>
>Regards,
>Ev, W2EV
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|