[CCF] Vl: [CQ-Contest] N2RM packetless M/2 details
jari.jokiniemi@nokia.com
jari.jokiniemi@nokia.com
Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:39:25 +0200
Omapa on asiansa, jos haluavat omalta osaltaan kääntää kehitystä vuosikymmeniä taakse päin.
-Jari, OH3BU
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Ari Korhonen [mailto:ari.korhonen@kolumbus.fi]
> Sent: 21 February 2002 15:12
> To: CCF
> Subject: [CCF] Vl: [CQ-Contest] N2RM packetless M/2 details
>
>
> N2RM:n pojat pani klusterin kiinni kisan ajaksi!
>
> Ari, OH1EH
> -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
> Lähettäjä: James Neiger <n6tj@sbcglobal.net>
> Vastaanottaja: John Golomb <kz2s@hiway1.exit109.com>;
> cq-contest@contesting.com <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Päivä: 20. helmikuuta 2002 23:55
> Aihe: Re: [CQ-Contest] N2RM packetless M/2 details
>
>
> >
> >Congratulations, John, to you and the N2RM crew for showing
> the way. Let's
> >hope it sticks...............
> >
> >Vy 73
> >
> >Jim Neiger
> >N6TJ
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "John Golomb" <kz2s@hiway1.exit109.com>
> >To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> >Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 9:15 AM
> >Subject: [CQ-Contest] N2RM packetless M/2 details
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Why did we do it?
> >> -----------------
> >>
> >> I've wanted to do this for quite some time now.
> >>
> >> There has been quite a bit of discussion the past few
> years about how
> >> multioperator contesting has been somewhat tarnished by
> the introduction
> >> and evolution of the extensive packet/internet spotting
> system. The
> >> thrill of hunting down your own multipliers has been
> replaced by how many
> >> clusters you can connect or telnet to over the weekend. I
> can remember a
> >> discussion that K3EST, N2AA, K3LR and myself had about 4-5
> years ago after
> >> a MM effort at K3LR about how cool it would be if all the
> MMs agreed to
> >> turn off packet for the weekend. There was some follow up
> discussion, but
> >> things kind of fizzled out.
> >>
> >> Then in November 2001, W4AN made the following post to CQ-Contest:
> >>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> From: Bill Fisher W4AN <w4an@contesting.com>
> >> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:24:59 -0500 (EST)
> >>
> >> I've already got my sites set on ARRL CW. A few of us
> bound for OH in
> >> July are considering competing in the M/S category and not using
> >> packet. K1DG ran the idea by me this week and the thought
> of doing a
> >> multi-op without packet got me all excited about the contest!
> >>
> >> So, I'm wondering if it would not be fun for all of the
> top multi-op
> >> stations to turn off the cluster for just one weekend?
> After its over,
> >> lets see if you don't all have more fun. I know I will.
> >>
> >> 73
> >>
> >> Bill Fisher, W4AN
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>
> >> Renewed interest in multi-oping without packet! N2NT and
> I quickly agreed
> >> that our M/2 operation from N2RM for ARRL CW would be
> packetless. We also
> >> had several of the other serious M/2's to agree to do the
> same. About two
> >> weeks before the contest, I found out that our competition
> had changed
> >> their mind, mostly due to some staffing issues - not
> enough operators. I
> >> still really wanted to operate without packet. I polled
> the rest of our
> >> crew and we all agreed that we would still carry through
> with no packet
> >> and see what happened. I was much more psyched about operating the
> >> contest knowing that we would have to work extra hard to keep our
> >> multiplier total up. Our crew hopes that some other
> multiops may take
> >> interest in operating this way after our effort.
> >>
> >> Some private correspondence I received from Greg, K8GL
> probably best
> >> expresses why things are better without packet, "This gets
> us back to
> >> operating and spotting as a team. Good stuff! LONG OVER
> DUE!" W4AN put
> >> it somewhat less eloquently in his 3830 post "Packet stinks".
> >>
> >> What did we do?
> >> ---------------
> >>
> >> There are some capabilities that we have at N2RM that were
> very important
> >> for our success this past weekend. Probably the most
> important is a short
> >> beverage that is several hundred feet away from the main
> transmitting
> >> antennas. We can effectively tune for mults on the same
> band that we are
> >> running on with this RX antenna.
> >>
> >> We set up four rigs for this effort, two "main" stations and two
> >> "supplemental" stations. The first supplemental station could be
> >> interlocked with either of the main stations and had
> transmit antennas for
> >> 40-10 meters. You could listen on either the transmit
> antenna or on the
> >> short beverage. The other supplemental rig was RX only
> and used the short
> >> beverage. We had four computers running CT and interfaced
> them to a stand
> >> alone 386 computer running cluster software. This allowed us to
> >> "internally spot" from the supplemental stations and load
> up the ANNOUNCE
> >> window in CT. We could still "point and shoot" for mults.
> There may be
> >> an easier way to implement this capability, but I wasn't
> smart enough to
> >> figure it out before the contest.
> >>
> >> So we had some important new chairs in the contest. The
> >> "spotting" chairs. We pretty much had the third chair
> active for almost
> >> the entire 48 hours. The fourth chair was active when we had the
> >> operators available to staff them.
> >>
> >> Some observations and conclusions
> >> ---------------------------------
> >>
> >> First of all, our entire crew agrees that the contest was
> much more fun
> >> without packet. It is immensely more satisfying to "build your
> >> own" multiplier total during the contest. It was also
> refreshing to have
> >> to deal with so few packet pileups during the weekend.
> Believe it or not,
> >> I think the actual number of packet pileups we ended up in over the
> >> weekend was probably in the single digits.
> >>
> >> This was the ARRL DX contest and is certainly not as
> multiplier rich of a
> >> contest as CQWW. The closest thing to M/2 in CQWW is probably
> >> multi-single. If we operated this way in CQWW as
> multi-single, I'm not so
> >> sure we would be as successful in keeping up with the
> >> "packetized" stations. We compared notes with K1AR on Saturday
> >> morning. We were ahead in QSO's quite a bit, but way
> behind in mults. We
> >> figured that with the somewhat limited pool of mults in
> ARRL DX, we would
> >> be able to catch up by the end of the contest.
> >>
> >> The somewhat unique capabilities we have at N2RM for same
> band receiving
> >> were essential for our success. Would it be fair to other
> stations that
> >> didn't have this capability to compete against us in the
> >> (hypothetical) packetless multioperator categories? I
> don't know what the
> >> answer is. Isn't this just part of building and improving your
> >> station? If K1AR turned packet off this weekend, I doubt
> they would have
> >> kept up with us in mults. They don't have the same band receiving
> >> capability we have. Look at W3LPL. Frank has built a
> crew of several
> >> people per band and can receive effectively while
> transmitting. Shouldn't
> >> he be rewarded for having this capability instead of
> having it nullified
> >> by packet?
> >>
> >> Would we do it again? Absolutely. Although I'm not sure
> how practical it
> >> would be to implement no packet at the Multi Multi level.
> Seems like
> >> there are enough problems staffing the major MMs without
> having to fill
> >> additional spotting chairs. I'd love to see additional
> interest for MS
> >> and M/2.
> >>
> >> Who else is interested in joining us operating and spotting as a
> >> team? I'm telling you - multiop contesting is much more fun and
> >> satisfying without packet. We'll be doing this again in
> next year's ARRL
> >> DX CW.
> >>
> >> If I may quote N2AA after the contest, "This is one of the
> coolest things
> >> I've done in my 40 years of contesting".
> >>
> >> 73,
> >>
> >> John N2NC
> >>
> >> For the 2002 N2RM ARRL CW team
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> >> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> >Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> CCF on WWW: http://www.qsl.net/ccf/
> Submissions: ccf@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: ccf-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-ccf@contesting.com
>
>
--
CCF on WWW: http://www.qsl.net/ccf/
Submissions: ccf@contesting.com
Administrative requests: ccf-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-ccf@contesting.com