Yes, that's interesting. The point is "how do you prove or disprove it?"
If I work 2 or 3 grids on any one band, I think I've demonstrated that
capability. But if I work some people on, say 47 GHz, and they're all in
the same 4-character grid, it COULD be that my equipment is not capable of
more than 200 meters distance. But how would anyone know? There's a
higher probability of having equipment that doesn't meet that requirement
above 24 GHz than on any band below that. Maybe I'd have to give the
6-character grids of both stations in that case.
73, Zack W9SZ
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Bill Burgess wrote:
> As printed, what we see posted as Rule 1.10 is not really a rule, and not
> worthy of the paper or space it takes up. As a proofreader, I read every
> word as printed, not as others choose to interpret it.
>
> Accordingly, "equipment SHOULD be capable of" is a suggestion, not a rule.
> If it were a rule, it would have to read "equipment MUST be capable of". As
> explained to me by another ARRL official whose email I am still searching
> for, "operators need not prove this in advance, they can operate in the
> contest regardless". So in actual fact, one never needs to prove this as
> nobody will ever call on you to prove it.
>
> As all have noted, there is no defined distance established in the January -
> June - September contests. This I understand is because the ARRL committe
> could find no acceptable way of measuring contest qso's by the exchange
> given. To impose a 6 km distance would require a 6 digit grid reference from
> both parties and still have ambiguity in it.
>
> Due to the "no minimum distance", statement, even laser qso's of 3 inches to
> a foot are acceptable. Not my idea of clean contesting, though totally
> legal. From a safety standpoint, laser "micro-qso's" may prevent serious eye
> problems from misdirected laser beams. But as lasers are not true RF, I
> think they should be dropped from contesting, to encourage more activity on
> lower bands to gain the points. More would win points by doing so.
>
> In rereading the stated Rule 1.10, does anybody else read it as I interpret
> it?
>
> 73,
>
> Bill Burgess VE3CRU
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|