[CCF] Vl: [CQ-Contest] N2RM packetless M/2 details
jukka.klemola@nokia.com
jukka.klemola@nokia.com
Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:35:50 +0200
Gents,
May I propose a new contesting class:
Multi Multi unassisted.
I think it is up to the M-M team if they wish
to run through the contest without spotting help.
Currently the contest regulations/prizes do not
encourage this.
Single operator category has implemented this already
and I feel we have some success with it, although
every now and then I hear about stations that use
spotting but send their log in unassisted category.
Radio Amateurs have claimed to be on the leading edge
in creating technologies.
I feel we can be on the leading edge also in this or
try to claim the spotting never existed.
We all know the truth.
So, my proposal to the CQWW committee is to create
a new category for Unassisted Multi Multi.
I feel CQWW can lead the way so the "smaller"
contests can follow.
73,
Jukka (OH6LI)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jokiniemi Jari (NET-OSS/Espoo)
> Sent: 22 February, 2002 08:39
> To: ccf@contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [CCF] Vl: [CQ-Contest] N2RM packetless M/2 details
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
--
CCF on WWW: http://www.qsl.net/ccf/
Submissions: ccf@contesting.com
Administrative requests: ccf-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-ccf@contesting.com