VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] "Rule" 1.10 revisited

To: Bill Burgess <ve3cru@rac.ca>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] "Rule" 1.10 revisited
From: Zack Widup <w9sz@prairienet.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:13:39 -0600 (CST)
List-post: <mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
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

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