VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] Fw: Re: Picking a Bone With Gene

To: John D'Ausilio <jdausilio@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Fw: Re: Picking a Bone With Gene
From: Dan Evans <dan.evans@insightbb.com>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 05:55:29 -0400
List-post: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com">mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
I don't really see it as an issue.

The stations who get E'skip conditions are going to score higher, just 
like the do now.  Ops who have their stations optimized to take 
advantage of the conditions will score higher than those who don't.

Using WSJT gives ops and advantage.  I see it like using CW gives an 
advantage now.  If you learn to use WSJT and optimize your station to 
take advantage of it's abilities, you will score higher.   Just as 
today, if you learn to use CW, you will have an advantage on the SSB 
only ops...

As to the question of WSJT contacts being valid QSO's... That's just 
silly.  Technology advances, get over it.

73
Dan
-- 
Amateur Radio Emergency Service, Clark County Indiana. EM78el
K9ZF /R no budget Rover ***QRP-l #1269 Check out the Rover Resource Page at:
<http://www.qsl.net/n9rla> List Administrator for: InHam+grid-loc+ham-books
Ask me how to join the Indiana Ham Mailing list! 



John D'Ausilio wrote:
> Ahh .. but the context of the discussion is/was the effect on
> distance-based scoring, and the relative effort required to achieve a
> long distance contact using Es or digital MS vs traditional "listening
> for the weak ones" ..he's not talking about "skill-based scoring" :)
>
> de w1rt/john
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Bill W5WVO <w5wvo@cybermesa.net> wrote:
>
>   
>> I don't think WSJT contacts need to be "down-weighted" because they are so 
>> easy,
>> because they are NOT so easy. And if you also take into account that it can 
>> take
>> as long as half an hour or more to complete one QSO on MS compared to "run
>> rates" of three and four QSOs a minute on SSB during a hot Es opening, the 
>> idea
>> seems absurd to me that WSJT QSOs need to be "penalized". If anything, they 
>> need
>> to be weighted higher because of their difficulty.
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>   
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting

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